I just read a very well-written essay on Fool’s Mountain by Mark Anthony Jones titled, “Sorting fact from fiction – Tiananmen revisited (part 1)“. As the title suggests, this is just the first part of an essay discussing the “Tiananmen Square Massacre”, with part 2 scheduled to be released later on May 22nd.
Drawing from a ton of cited sources, the piece actually echoes much of what I personally learned back in my days at The People’s Republic of Berkeley. However, for the vast majority of people, it offers a wealth of information, perspective, and insights on what actually happened in Beijing almost 20 years ago that they may be completely ignorant of. You see, when it comes to Tiananmen, most people see it in very black and white, clear-cut terms:
- Chinese student protesters = pro-democracy = victims and martyrs.
- Chinese government = evil communism = murderers and oppressors.
In reality, Tiananmen was not nearly so simple and, unfortunately, Tiananmen is regularly invoked in oversimplified — even distorted — terms for any number of political ends and arguments. Mark Anthony Jones’ essay aims to shed more light on Tiananmen, in hopes of dispelling a lot of commonly and even closely-held misconceptions, misunderstandings, and myths surrounding how it happened and what it meant. As such, I highly recommend those with a genuine interest in learning more about the topic to go take the time to read it.
But…the essay is quite long, so it may be a bit intimidating for pretty much anyone who isn’t a historian or academic. In fact, it’s probably too long for the vast majority of internet users to sit through, seeing as how we suffer so from Attention Deficit Disorder. Therefore, I’ve shrunk it down 80%* into the following review, featuring 20 excerpts of the interesting information presented that may prove to be illuminating for many:
In 2004, the former Australian diplomat, Gregory Clark, in an article published in The Japan Times, claimed that no massacre ever took place in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989, or anywhere else in Beijing. ‘There was no deliberate massacre of innocent students,’ he wrote, and ‘no massacre in the Square.’ Instead, what occurred was a ‘mini civil war,’ with ‘panicky fighting’ having been ‘triggered by crowds attacking troops, initially unarmed, as they headed for the Square on June 3.’
Many Western politicians, reporters and editors, have indeed continued to accept a version of events that portrays the students as having been the advocates of a Western-style political system, murdered in their thousands while peacefully assembled in the confines of Tiananmen Square.
…with the death of the democratically inclined Hu Yaobang on April 15, some of the more ‘politically astute’ students saw an opportunity: ‘they knew that the death of a high Party leader was a time when authorities would briefly tolerate a degree of political dissent.’
The students may have initiated the Tiananmen movement, but by mid-May they had become dwarfed by the intervention of much broader social forces.
The student protesters were at the time widely portrayed by Western journalists as ‘pro-democracy’ campaigners, as if they had been calling on the central government to introduce a political system based on multi-party elections. Most, however, simply equated the idea of ‘democracy’ with the need for government accountability and responsiveness.
Chinoy then goes on to explain how at the time, he quickly came to realise that ‘the protesters were not talking about an American-style political system for China’ when they spoke of democracy. ‘I wasn’t completely comfortable,’ he admits, ‘with the way I and other reporters, faced with the limitation of daily journalism and its pressure to compress and simplify, tended to describe their protests as a “democracy movement,” for ‘the more I listened, the more I became convinced that the students’ top priority was not establishing a democracy, but simply securing formal recognition from the government for their movement.’
Another journalist who covered events at the time, Jane Macartney, also questioned the students’ motives. Democracy was merely a ‘buzzword’ she realised, for ‘accountability is what they meant.’ When asked about their ideas, says Macartney, ‘most were hard pressed for an answer. “Freedom, democracy,” the students said during demonstrations. Pressed to elaborate, they complained of official corruption and high-level nepotism, poor food and uncomfortable dormitories. Were they talking about universal equality of opportunity or were they merely envious of those who held higher-paying jobs?’
‘The demonstrations cannot be considered purely anti-government, as many protesters think of themselves as a kind of loyal opposition,’ wrote David Holley for The Los Angeles Times, April 23. The student movement, he later added, was ‘aimed at accelerating the process of economic and political reform within the Communist Party and under the Communist Party’s leadership of the Chinese system.’
Many of those who turned out to support the movement no doubt did so simply because that was what everyone else seemed to be doing.
…all eight American-based media organisations sampled tended to define the student movement as a ‘pro-democracy’ one, even though ‘the majority’ of banners, T-shirts and symbols used by the student protesters were in Chinese, not English – their demands ‘reflect[ing] Chinese cultural norms, rather than Western ideas.’
…American journalists, the report concluded, because of their excessive ethnocentrism, generally failed at the time to understand the unique features and limitations of the student movement: ‘Americans tend to see their own democratic values mirrored elsewhere in the world.’ Such an outlook, while facilitating interest and sympathy, also ‘plants seeds of misunderstanding.’
The student movement was also elitist in the way that it ‘largely ignored the workers,’ …quite keen to prevent the workers from appropriating their movement, and sought from the very beginning to marginalise all non-students.
…‘they observed in the student leaders and in their movement many of the faults of the nation’s leaders and their political system: hierarchy, secrecy, condescension toward ordinary people, factionalism and struggles for power, and even special privilege and corruption.’
…the student movement, rather than having operated democratically, simply reproduced elite hierarchies similar to those that structured the Chinese Communist Party.
…‘the bickering students began to display the same bureaucratic and autocratic tendencies in their “People’s Republic of Tiananmen Square” that they were trying to change in the government.’
The outside world thought the demonstrators were disciplined, and marveled. But having lived through the Cultural Revolution myself, talents like slogan shouting and mass marching didn’t impress me…it seemed that the students were merely aping their oppressors. They established a Lilliputian kingdom in Tiananmen Square, complete with a min-bureaucracy with committees for sanitation, finance and ‘propaganda’. They even adopted grandiose titles. Chai Ling was elected Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Tiananmen Square Unified Action Headquarters.
Like the government, the students’ broadcast station sometimes deliberately disseminated misinformation, such as the resignation of key government officials, which wasn’t true. They even, indignity of all indignities, issued us press passes. Using transparent fishing line held in place by volunteers who simply stood there all day, they carved the huge square into gigantic concentric circles of ascending importance. Depending on how our press passes were stamped determined how deeply we could penetrate those silly circles.
The reason why the students were able to enjoy little negative press, with most foreign journalists choosing to turn a blind eye to their elite authoritarianism, is because producers were concerned that anything negative reported might ‘play into the hands’ of the Chinese central government…Most foreign journalists were keen to promote the idea that liberal democracy has universal appeal, which meant not only putting a democratic stamp on the student movement, but also the constant portraying of students in a positive light.
Specifically, journalists underreported ‘actions that were distinctly undemocratic, hypocritical or elitist. Conflicts among the protesters were downplayed, as well as the reluctance of some student leaders to welcome workers into their movement. There were inadequate attempts to report the source of funds the movement received, and whether they were properly used and accounted for.’
…Chai Ling, in a now famous interview with Cunningham himself, explained that what the movement was ‘actually hoping for is bloodshed’, for ‘only when the Square is washed in our blood will the people of China open their eyes.’
It ‘is true that student forces did reproduce many features of the CCP regime during their occupation of Tiananmen Square,’ he adds, ‘and this is a reminder of the staying power of hegemonic forms…The fierce factional infighting in Tiananmen Square, during which protesters resurrected old Cultural Revolution labels such as “renegade” and “traitor” to attack their enemies,’ simply exemplifies just how persistent ‘entrenched political habits’ can be.
* If you’re curious, the original essay featured 5372 words and 29,211 characters. The above excerpts total 1121 words, and 6416 characters.
Given what I know of Fool’s Mountain, the ensuing discussion in their comments (none yet) for these pieces will likely be quite intelligently contentious. If you have a firm grasp of rhetoric, I encourage you to go check out the comments and see if there’s a debate you want to contribute to. Either way, I hope reading this piece will help more people reflect upon what they think they know about the “Tiananmen Square Massacre”, prompt some questions, and lead everyone towards developing a more mature understanding of something that was anything but simple and clear-cut.
I will update this with interesting excerpts from Part 2 when it is published.
May 10, 2009 UPDATE:
Richard of The Peking Duck blog fame brought up in the comments below a worthwhile caution concerning the author of the essay referenced above. Having checked the damning evidence provided, it appears that Mark Anthony Jones has been caught consistently plagiarizing others in his past comments on The Peking Duck blog. So far, no one has suggested that the essay above attributed to him was plagiarized, but this revelation certainly sheds an interesting twist on the credibility of the writer himself.
That said, it is worth remembering that while the writer could be an untrustworthy person, it does not automatically render what the writer has written as false, untrue, or incorrect. Given that the writer has offered plenty of cited sources that can be referenced and checked against, it is hereby advised that readers do their own due diligence when evaluating the merits of the points and information presented in the essay. As stated by myself below, the points presented echo my own research and knowledge of the issue. It is unfortunate nonetheless that such a piece is tainted and potentially undermined by the writer’s own negative but self-wrought reputation.
June 4, 2009 UPDATE:
James Kynge from the Financial Times writes another piece tackling the contentious issue of the Western media’s narrative of Tiananmen Square that has already ruffled the feathers of quite a few in the comments below. Here is a brief excerpt:
When I think about the massacre in central Beijing that followed weeks of demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in 1989, which I covered as part of a team of Reuters reporters, I cannot help feeling troubled.
Of course it was a brutal and harrowing time, but that isn’t the reason for my disquiet. I’m concerned because I don’t think we – the western media – got the narrative of those days quite right.
People say journalism is merely a first, rough draft of history. But the problem here is that this draft appears to have been canonised, passing largely unedited into popular conscience.
The truth is that the students in the square had only the haziest understanding of western-style democracy. To the extent that the protests were directed at abuses of an existing system by an emerging elite, they were motivated more by outrage at the betrayal of socialist ideals than by aspirations for a new system. The mood in the square was at least as much conservative as it was activist.
Such arguments may seem arcane two decades later. But, in my view, they are keenly relevant. The styling of Tiananmen as a pro-democracy movement helped to miscast the west’s narrative on China’s past and future.
Several people below have criticized me (and others) for caring about this issue, going so far as to suggest that discussing the accuracy of the Western media’s reporting of Tiananmen either detracts from a greater moral imperative to keep the condemnation and pressure on the Chinese central government that has tried to erase what happened from history or lends support to Chinese government revisionists and apologists, or both. I disagree with such people. To me, being able to examine information that doesn’t fit our existing conceptions and reconciling our existing conceptions to the information we critically examine is incredibly important to not just understanding what Tiananmen, but respecting it. Projecting our own values and ideology upon the demonstrators is equivalent to subverting their dignity and commandeering their movement.
OK, I’ll kick off.
There were no claims, arguments, or facts in your ‘top twenty’ that I wasn’t already aware of. Some hold more water than others, but none change the impact that 6/4 had on modern Chinese history or the need for the CCP to stop leading its people in a chorus of silence.
In particular, I would single out Gregory Clark’s view as the type of comment that Tiananmen apologists cling to because it’s easier to stomach than facing up to a government that turned the army on its own people. Never underestimate the power of denial.
There were lots of witnesses to this event, you know.
stuart,
1. Have you gone over to read Mark Anthony Jones’ piece?
2. Why aren’t you raising your objections over there?
3. If you want to debate what Mark Anthony Jones is arguing, you might want to consider using cited sources as he has. I don’t think allusions to evidence such as “there were lots of witnesses to this event” will cut it going up against his essay. In more informal debates, maybe, but not so much against someone who is mobilizing his research to argue against popular conceptions.
Moreover, I don’t think Mark Anthony Jones is denying or excusing what the government eventually chose to do. His piece, so far, seems to be exploring to what degree the students undermined their own objectives and presenting information that show the students in a more objective light than what many of us were presented with both back then and what we still hold as misconceptions. You’re not so much responding to Mark Anthony Jones as you’re trying to change the subject.
You do seem to get upset rather easily, Kai.
1. Yes, I have.
2. I think you need to know a bit more about MAJ’s track record before you begin recommending others to engage in a discussion over there. If you don’t want comments, block replies on this thread.
3. I’ll cite sources when it’s necessary. Are you suggesting there were no witnesses to murder in 1989?
“I don’t think Mark Anthony Jones is denying or excusing what the government eventually chose to do.”
I think you’re wrong. At the very least, he’s attempting to spin 6/4 as an incident wildly overblown by western media.
1. Great, so if you have objections, why are you refusing to bring them up with MAJ and instead hiding here?
2a. LoL, the old poisoning the well fallacy? Please tell us about MAJ’s track record then. To be fair, let me remind everyone else how lousy your track record is as well.
2b. What do you mean “over there?”
2c. I’m fine with comments. I just don’t see why it is fruitful for you to avoid raising your objections with MAJ himself. Are you interested in actually DISCUSSING the matter with someone you disagree with or did you just want to speak without listening?
3. If you disagree with MAJ’s “spin” on 6/4, please cite sources to prove your point instead of using yet another fallacy: appealing to common belief. The fact that you’re resorting to such is precisely what MAJ is addressing in his essay: that most people believe X about Y but the reality is more like Z. You’re not addressing MAJ’s argument. You’re entirely sidestepping doing so by whining over here instead of directly confronting him with your objections. This SUGGESTS to me that you’re not interested (or capable) of actually proving your point counter to the research he’s done and cited, and would prefer to just repeat and insist upon your opinion (which no one doubts is shared by many, but see the above fallacy again) absent substantiation.
Why is it that every time you comment here, you absolutely must misunderstand, misinterpret, or otherwise misconstrue a major point? I reckon it is because it’s easier for you to “argue” your point against straw men. MAJ’s piece does not suggest that the incident was “wildly overblown by the western media.” It suggests that the western media’s presentation of the incident was significantly distorted. To argue his point, he quotes and cites numerous sources (some of whom were part of the Western media itself) that corroborate his argument, and further offer explanations for WHY the Western media’s reporting was distorted.
You’ve seen fit to disagree with this major point of his first piece, ignore all of his evidence, allude to having evidence of your own, and refuse to offer any, instead appealing to others as if they should already know and thus agree with you. That’s bullshit rhetoric of the fenqing variety. Please offer some of those witnesses or citations addressing and refuting, for example, MAJ’s contention that members of the Western media itself felt they intentionally failed to report objectively on the student movement, that they overemphasized the “pro-democratic” nature of the movement in contradiction to what the students were actually seeking, because in part of their own ethnocentric bias.
Can you do that, stuart? You know, offer a counter ARGUMENT, not just a CLAIM. I’ve offered you a good resource above for understanding what that means. (Hell, I even welcome you to use it against me as I KNOW I often get away with a lot of fallacies. You just don’t have a knack for identifying them.)
But hey, stuart, I won’t hold my breath. As I’ve said before, stuart, you’re more interested in changing the subject instead of actually responding. You’ve done this to my previous posts and I frankly expect you to continue doing so. Since you’re incorrigible, I’ll just have to content myself with calling you out on that each time.
Kai, let’s look at that first example you just cited:
In a study of U.S. press coverage on the Beijing spring of 1989, conducted by The Joan Shorenstein Barone Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, it was noted that all eight American-based media organisations sampled tended to define the student movement as a ‘pro-democracy’ one, even though ‘the majority’ of banners, T-shirts and symbols used by the student protesters were in Chinese, not English – their demands ‘reflect[ing] Chinese cultural norms, rather than Western ideas.
I want you to look carefully and honestly at the logic there. All 8 media groups thought it was about democracy. Fine, I’ll buy that. What is used to contradict this? The students were wearing T-shirts with words written in Chinese. This is a serious non-sequitor and should raise a giant “red flag” for you. Especially if you take into account that these students were – and I know this is a shocker – Chinese. Of course most of their shirts were Chinese. I am afraid this is a signature example of the author’s history of making what on the surface appears to be a logical and sensible point. Upon closer examination, we see it is not only misleading, it’s downright absurd. Seriously Kai, you’re a friend and someone I hold in esteem. Do you read the fact that the students had hazi on their shirts as an indication that the US media got it all wrong? And maybe they did get it all wrong. But are Chinese T-shirts the smoking gun that prove this? Do you agree with the writer’s logic that the Chinese T-shirts are a relevant factor in determining media bias?
Since you pulled the link about Stuart from your own site to make a point, allow me to do likewise with regard to the writer in question. While he may seem impressive, at least upon first glance, you simply must know his history and track record as a conscious and persistent online prankster who makes a sport out of fooling people. It is absolutely essential that anyone reading this writer be aware of what he is all about. Each of us in the blogosphere leaves his trail and his track record, and we cannot be looked at in a vacuum.
I do agree with the basic premise, by the way – TS is shrouded in myths, similar to the history of Tibet. I am all for exposing these and creating a better understanding of what happened. But those doing the explaining need to have some credibility. Please look carefully at the link I provided and the comments that follow (so you can see this was not an isolated incident but part of a bigger pattern), and let me know if you feel this is a credible source, one that inspires confidence, admiration and trust. Thanks Kai.
Richard, you wound me. Do you really think I’m suggesting that Chinese words alone led to the Western media getting it all wrong? Morever, do you really think that’s what MAJ was suggesting also? You have to take that quote within context, and given that stuart claims to have read the piece, I assumed he wouldn’t be so absurd as to bring up the objection or “red flag” I’m surprised you’re raising.
The suggestion in this quote (not MAJ’s own words) is that the Western media reporters and, more importantly, the Western audience, did not understand the Chinese on those items. Without understanding the Chinese on those items, they may not have realized that the demands written on them were NOT what the Westerners think of when it comes to “democracy.”
What I’m saying here should be obvious upon reading MAJ’s essay. What the students meant was different from what some reporters saw and what many audiences were told. The Chinese words on t-shirts and banners is just one example of the West projecting their own ideas and values. That’s what the “ethnocentrism” accusation was about.
I agree with the writer’s logic that the inability to read or understand the Chinese written on t-shirts within the context of Chinese socio-political norms may have CONTRIBUTED to distorted reporting of what the entire movement was about and how closely it related to what Westerners understand as “pro-democracy.” As I said above, therein lies the danger of projection and ethnocentrism and, as MAJ’s piece quotes, “plants seeds of misunderstanding.”
I’ve taken a look at the link you provided about MAJ and read your post. As you know, I don’t know MAJ personally nor did his name ring any bless for me, so I didn’t attribute more credit or less credit to what he wrote on Fool’s Mountain, and I included his name to give credit where I think credit is due. So what you’ve shown me says MAJ has been caught plagiarizing multiple times. I agree that this makes his credibility suspect and should his essay be proven to be plagiarized, I’ll definitely rescind my statements crediting him with a “well-written essay.”
I do understand that MAJ’s credibility could actually undermine the points expressed in the essay. There’s a very real risk of it because no matter how much of a fallacy one can prove such a judgment to be, it’s a very human thing to do. Given what you’ve shown me, I can’t say I can accord confidence, admiration, and trust in him personally. However, given that the material he has presented does indeed echo much of what I learned back in Cal and elsewhere on my own, I think I can still confidently say I think the essay presents salient points regarding the “truth” of Tiananmen vis a vis what most people “know”.
I trust you understand what I mean, and agree that it is entirely logical to judge a piece for what it says separate from who says it. I like Dan at CLB and I like Will at Imagethief, but I’ve recently found myself disagreeing with them on certain topics, like what Jackie Chan said. I can disagree harshly with the content of what they say on one topic but still like both of them on other things (and I still love you of course, my dear butt buddy). MAJ may be proven to be a plagiarizing pederast but his essay (or his compilation of other people’s work) will still make good sense about Tiananmen until the day it is proven to be supported by information spawned from a vast conspiracy that stretches across the internet and involves multiple people including my professors at Cal being multiple sources of misinformation.
So, do you think I should edit out my accreditation and compliment to him in my above post?
Richard,
I think the quote you mentioned needs to be examined more closely.
“In a study of U.S. press coverage on the Beijing spring of 1989, conducted by The Joan Shorenstein Barone Center… define the student movement as a ‘pro-democracy’ one, even though ‘the majority’ of banners, T-shirts and symbols used by the student protesters were in Chinese, not English – their demands ‘reflect[ing] Chinese cultural norms, rather than Western ideas.’
Although there were a number of notable exceptions, American journalists, the report concluded, because of their excessive ethnocentrism, generally failed at the time to understand the unique features and limitations of the student movement: ‘Americans tend to see their own democratic values mirrored elsewhere in the world.’ Such an outlook, while facilitating interest and sympathy, also ‘plants seeds of misunderstanding”
The issue here is one of projection. Seeing the large scale protest coupled with banners, t-shirts, and symbols in Chinese, the journalists concluded that the movement was “pro-democracy”. This is where the author should have been more clear. Did he mean to imply that the journalists did not understand Chinese and therefore mistook what was written on the banners, t-shirts etc as pro-democracy? Thus they filled the gaps in their knowledge by projecting their ethnocentric view on the protest and concluded that it was pro-democracy.
The more sinister interpretation would be that the media outlets colluded in pushing the same message, to paint a David-vs-Goliath story about brave students fighting the good fight against the evil CCP regime. This would hardly be unprecedented. Yet, I find myself unable to believe that all 8 media outlets had a deal in place to write essentially the same story.
Hi Sam. See my reply to Kai directly above. There is too much jumping to conclusions with zero evidence. If the quote said there was a study of 8 media that determined their reporters could not read Chinese and were unfamiliar with Chinese culture I wouldn’t be so critical. But to take the quote and then put our own projections on it – the reporters were from overseas, ergo they couldn’t read Chinese and couldn’t understand China – is unacceptable.
Hello Richard.
Fair point. And that is why I think he should have been more clear as to what he meant.
Slightly off topic but thanks for the link about your (ongoing?) feud with MAJ. I hope things have cooled down.
Although this brings up Kai’s points about evaluating an argument based upon its merits. It is easy to dismiss a person’s comments based upon his reputation or in your case Richard, your negative experiences with MAJ. But I will hasten to add that had your experiences with MAJ been positive and you were here singing his praises (humour me) one would still need to evaluate what he says on its own terms.
I can’t completely agree with your final point, Sam. You absolutely must know your sources and motivations. I like Stuart who comments first here and he’s been a long-time commenter on my site. But Kai is completely in line to point out trends in his comments, his tendency to swerve to one side or whatever and not just Suart, of course, but all of us. And I’m not saing one dumb thing we say on line should brand us forever. I’ve put up 5,000 posts and thousands of comments and .m sure I’ve said some pretty stupid stuff now and then. But it’s the pattern, the defining characteristics – these are valid to raise, if, for example. a commenter is deeply prejudiced and that prejudices marks his every comment. It’s fair to say, look, you can see that whenever this topic comes up he reflexively say X and Z. When someone has a long history spanning of years as pretending to be an elderly female doctor, asking for photos of other commenters private parts, and delighting in fooling everybody by assuming multiple identities and on top of that plagiarize, you should be damned sure we have a right to pause before accepting his word at face value. We are the sum of what we say and do. When you look and see a huge accumulation of made-up, plagiarized stuff and literally years of sock-puppeting, you have every right, and may even be seen as foolish if you don’t, refuse to take his argument on its own merits, at least not until you’ve made sure to check his sources, scan for plagiarism and take just about every word with a gigantic grain os sea salt based o the writer’s past. “Fool me once,” as President Bush once tried to say….
What Sam and I have said is that even a liar can tell the truth. You’re just saying everyone needs to approach the information a known liar offers with caution. We’re all correct and none of us are wrong. Both statements are logical. We agree with each other. The wise course of action here would be to acknowledge MAJ’s credibility issue and advise readers to do their own due diligence (aka use their own damn brains) to fact-check, corroborate, and reason out their own conclusions about the topic presented. The idea is to judge the information by its own merits, instead of substituting judgment of the information with a judgment of the information provider.
Exactly.
I have a serious disagreement with you about the previous comment, in which you find it satisfactory to make a broad assumption about the media to arrive at a very specific conclusion, and then say the burden of proof is on the reader to go do research proving the assumption is false. I would say the onus is on the one making the claim to first provide their proof, not on the public to then have to disprove it in the face of no supporting data. Again, as a journalist, I find this odd, but we may have to agree to disagree on what constitutes good journalism.
Richard, we need to be clear on the parties involved. We have an individual, MAJ, quoting written sources. Those sources are also individuals giving their testimony. I too am an individual who is referencing the sources of the individual MAJ that are quoted testimonies of other individuals who were at Tiananmen or have studied Tiananmen academically. Who, then, are you accusing of making a broad assumption about the media to arrive at a very specific conclusion? Me? MAJ? The sources quoted?
The quoted sources provided their understanding of what happened. MAJ references their testimony to substantiate the arguments he’s making in his essay. I’m corroborating that the arguments AND information presented in MAJ’s essay (which, who knows, may be a plagiarized compilation) echoes what I know from what I’ve learned and read from elsewhere, including my days as a student studying China in UC Berkeley.
There’s a very clear argumentative structure here. Premises are offered that are then reasoned into the subsequent conclusions offered. If you disagree with the premises, conclusion, or reasoning, you have to explain why. So far, your explanations do not seem to debunk, refute, or call into question the points offered in MAJ’s essay. The closest you’ve come that I can figure out is you calling into question the “reasoning.” You have, in fact, actually come out to say you agree with the conclusion and the premises, but you think there’s a disconnect in reasoning that I simply do not see or understand from your explanations.
MAJ’s essay provides the proof in the form of multiple sources testifying to the same thing, that the Western media distorted its reporting and suggesting both unintentional and intentional reasons why. I don’t understand how you’re able to insist that the one making the claim is not providing their proof when they have. Thus far, I haven’t seen you explain away the “proof” I point out to you that you continue to state as not existing.
This is so strange that I’m wondering if there was an inadvertent disconnect somewhere in our conversation. I’m not even sure why you’re going on about what constitutes “good journalism.” Perhaps we need to start back at square one?
Probably better to sort it out via email later on, Kai. Seems to be a miscommunication somewhere. I’m at work, but will have more to say later on. Thanks.
All you need say is that the Hong Kong journalists at the scene reported it in the same way. Unless of course they also could not understand Chinese in the context of the political situation, in which case who will we trust?
I think one thing you’re overlooking is the fact that people who grew up in British-run Hong Kong have a different socio-political perspective than those who grew up under Communist China. It’s not as simple as a shared language, FOARP. The same applies to Taiwanese or Singaporeans. Just as with the recent Jackie Chan debacle, we saw differences between how each demographic reacted. Why? Because they each generally have different socio-political consciousness borne out of their own socio-political history.
Richard,
First let me clarify what I mean when I write one has to judge an argument based on its merits. For me, the process is as follows:
1. Not giving in to my prior prejudice and consequently not dismissing the argument entirely based upon the poster’s reputation.
2. Check the logical reasoning of the piece and evaluate evidence presented
3. Time permitting, check up on the sources.
Note that I believe source checking to be extremely important but the reality is with time constraints one must work with what is available. I do not promote believing anything at face value, and on a side note, a healthy sense of skepticism when it comes to governments and media – ALL governments and media – is warranted.
What you wrote about trend analysis for postings and evaluation of the poster’s intentions strikes me as a high level analysis. What I mean by this is somewhat similar to the Macroeconomic vs. Microeconomic approach to economic analysis. The problem I have with your “macro” approach is that it is prone to stereotyping if not checked adequately. For instance, the majority of the material coming out of Fox News is wholly abhorrent to me but I won’t outright dismiss. If Fox News breaks a story, certainly based upon my experiences I will be more reserved and cautious when dealing with the piece, but I will let the arguments speak for itself before factoring in Fox’s motivations, trends, history, and my general impression of it into the equation.
From a more personal example, I occasionally debate with a few posters on Japan Today (under a different moniker) regarding China issues. Several of these posters have a very myopic world view and are prone to reducing situations into the usual good-guy (country XYZ) vs bad guy (China) viewpoints. My experiences gathered from reading hundreds of their posts have endowed me with an almost six sense in predicting what they would say. Despite all of this, I approach all of their comments and the sources that they provide with as objective a viewpont as I can (I’m not a Buddha). And what do you know? Occasionaly they have quite sane and interesting things to say.
This is to say, in a rather roundabout way, that your approach is absolutely valid. But to me, it is just another tool to aid in making sense of a piece of argument and not to be relied upon exclusively. In the case of MAJ, your frustrating personal experiences with him have certainly lent more credence to your skepticism concerning his postings. But I do not have the hangups with him as you do, so am more free to focus on the “micro” analysis. A careful reading of his piece jibes with the material I’ve read elsewhere. At this point you bring up his reputation and shenanigans and it certainly raises a red flag on his motivations for writing such a piece, but the piece itself resonates with what I’ve already known.
Richard wrote: “But it’s the pattern, the defining characteristics – these are valid to raise, if, for example. a commenter is deeply prejudiced and that prejudices marks his every comment. It’s fair to say, look, you can see that whenever this topic comes up he reflexively say X and Z. When someone has a long history spanning of years as pretending to be an elderly female doctor, asking for photos of other commenters private parts, and delighting in fooling everybody by assuming multiple identities and on top of that plagiarize, you should be damned sure we have a right to pause before accepting his word at face value. We are the sum of what we say and do. When you look and see a huge accumulation of made-up, plagiarized stuff and literally years of sock-puppeting, you have every right, and may even be seen as foolish if you don’t, refuse to take his argument on its own merits, at least not until you’ve made sure to check his sources, scan for plagiarism and take just about every word with a gigantic grain os sea salt based o the writer’s past. “Fool me once,” as President Bush once tried to say….”
Richard – you’re tal;king absolute rubbish here, you know it. Grow up, and stop trying to be a cyber bully. You’re wasting yuor time.
Hey Richard, yeah, you might not be used to the threaded/nested comments structure. Came out formally with WordPress 2.7 and I know Ryan redesigned your website prior to that. It has its pros and cons. Pro: keeps a conversation together. Con: a little harder to figure out what was written before and after, especially if people don’t reply within the same nesting (like you! *shakes fist*).
I understand your objection as you feeling there was insufficient evidence offered to support the notion that the Western media (all 8 of them) were so inadequate with their Chinese language skills and understanding of Chinese socio-political norms to have more accurately represented what the student’s movement meant. Sam, above, echoes what I’ve said and am trying to explain. My response is that the essay presents many quoted sources, both Chinese and Western, echoing the notion that the Western media was projecting what they wanted to see into the student movement, turning a blind eye to elements that were actually in contradiction to what they wanted. There was both a desire to portray the student movement as representing the Western ideal of pro-democracy and a bias against the existing “communist” regime. I felt the essay offered sufficient evidence to substantiate such an argument.
The essay, again, also echoed what I’ve studied elsewhere, so to me, I don’t find the argument to be new or contrary to what I personally know. It may be different for you given your background. This becomes a matter of corroboration. While this essay may corroborate what I know, does it stand on its own merits? Just because it echoes what I know or the material I trust from elsewhere, does this essay by itself offer enough evidence? You apparently don’t think so, but I think it does, given that I feel it is quite well cited.
I still believe you’re latching onto a technicality of English composition rather than evaluating the statement within reasonable context. The best way for you to counter the argument and supporting quotes is to find quotes (testimony) to the contrary, that the Western media reporters are 100% confident in their Chinese language ability and socio-political understanding of 1989 China and the generations/demographics of the parties involved. I don’t deny that there are expert Western sinophiles, both then and now, but I think the probability of all the Western media reporters being expert Western sinophiles is arguably small. I’m not trying to suggest an absolute law that the Western reporters couldn’t understand the Chinese movement simply because they aren’t Chinese, but I think it is a legitimate observation and argument that the Westerners may not have fully understood the context of what was happening, may have had ideological conflicts of interests, may have projected their own ethnocentric values onto a foreign movement, and may have unintentionally or intentionally distorted their reporting to Western audiences who likely had even less contextualized understanding of what was going on in China with the Chinese involved. All of this given the evidence available to us, both in MAJ’s essay and beyond.
I think that excerpt of MAJ’s essay is basically saying an insufficient understanding of Chinese (in both language and socio-political context) could have CONTRIBUTED to the Western media’s distorted reporting. Another suggested contributing factor was the ideological conflicts of interest and ethnocentrism. I don’t think taking that sentence literally as “Chinese language proficiency” alone is reasonable given the context, and even so, you also know that language is more than functional proficiency, especially when it comes to sloganeering that mimics and reflects socio-political norms.
For example, many Westerners can read the Chinese words for “Grass Mud Horse” but they may not fully understand the deep socio-political (and cultural) context from where it sprang from that gives it its appeal. Even after the NYT reported on it, there were many Chinese and Western pundits criticizing the report for overpoliticizing it, overemphasizing it as some sort of political protest against censorship when it is arguably more mischievous wordplay with maybe a bit of political overtone (it is arguable the pun was developed in the face of forum profanity filters and moderators than the central government itself).
So basically what you are saying is that Westerners do not understand Chinese, and that the fact that many of the students carried placards demanding democracy in Chinese does not mean that they were pro-democracy. Don’t you see the sheer illogicality of this viewpoint? You can argue that the kind of democracy they wanted was different, but to say they were not pro-democracy makes no sense. Especially when you consider that coverage in the Hong Kong and Japanese press was not dissimilar.
The fact that a bunch of university students were unclear as to the meaning of words like ‘democracy’ does nothing to disprove the nature of their protest. You also have to see the protests in context, that is, the same year in which Tiananmen square took place, communist dictatorships fell around the world. The students themselves hailed Gorbachev as an example.
Apologies, due to a quirk in my site’s search function I gave the wrong link for the post and comments I maintain every reader needs to check out. This is it. Sorry.
Richard,
MAJ provided his viewpoint and used some references to back him up of what he says. I’m sure that some of the students in Tiananmen square really want to overthrow the government and not just want to have reform. There are numerous dissidents who were interviewed later really wanted to change the government to a democracy. If you disagree with his viewpoint point out the fallacies of his statement and not kill the messenger so to speak.
Pug, who the messenger is is quite relevant, something Kai seemed to agree with above. But let’s put that aside if you feel it is irrelevant. Let’s look instead at the precise words:
it was noted that all eight American-based media organisations sampled tended to define the student movement as a ‘pro-democracy’ one, even though ‘the majority’ of banners, T-shirts and symbols used by the student protesters were in Chinese, not English
I highlighted the “even though” because that’s where he’s saying there is a contradiction and a sign of bad journalism – even though they had Chinese characters on their shirts, the journalists STILL said they were there for pro-Democracy purposes. Without looking at anything else, do you find this a reasonable argument: that reporters were displaying poor journalism because students wore shirts with Chinese on them and the reporters characterized the uprising as pro-Democracy. Because as a journalist myself, I see a monumental disconnect between cause and effect, action-reaction It is a spurious and contrived linkage, stated in a way that on first read makes you think, Oh, those dumb reporters! But on closer inspection, the juxtaposition is utterly devoid of substance. So again, leaving out the writer’s history, do you think it’s a smart point he’s making here? Does it pass journalistic muster? That was just the first thing I saw – they very first example Kai Pan offered, and it jumped right out at me, another “here we go again” moment. What do you think of the juxtaposition, pugster?
Richard, I think you’re making a very silly and untenable objection here. As I already explained in my previous reply to you, when you read this section in context of the original essay, the point is clear that a language and cultural context barrier may have contributed to how the American-based media organizations defined the student movement. The implication is that had the media organizations better understood the language and how that language reflected Chinese socio-political norms, they might not have been so quick to define the student movement as a “pro-democracy” one. They may have, as suggested by the essay, concluded instead that what the student movement actually wanted was something more akin to greater “accountability” than the ideals of strict “democracy.” As you know, democracy and accountability are not one and the same.
The best argument you can make is that MAJ could’ve “worded” this section better, but that’s a criticism an English teacher makes, not a rhetoric teacher (though I grant that clear communication is important when making arguments). Again, I find it really surprising that you’re latching onto this when the writing around it so easily contextualizes it. Are you upset with me choosing it as an excerpt? I thought it succinctly hints at some good points. I never imagined a literal and exclusive reading of it would cause such confusion.
Sorry Kai, didn’t see your reply until much later – this comment format takes some getting used to. And I appreciate your sensible response. But I simply don’t understand your statement, “I agree with the writer’s logic that the inability to read or understand the Chinese written on t-shirts within the context of Chinese socio-political norms may have contributed to distorted reporting of what the entire movement was about and how closely it related to what Westerners understand as “pro-democracy.” I read the text you cited, and I didn’t get see any solid evidence that these reporters didn’t read Chinese or couldn’t understand what was on the shirts or didn’t understand Chinese culture, etc. While I’m willing to accept that as a possibility, I just missed it in the actual text cited. I mean, Jan Wong and John Pomfret, among others, had quite excellent Chinese and were with major media covering it, as did at least several others.
So no, my complaint wasn’t only about the wording (though there’s tat, too) – it’s about the lack of any evidence offered to back it up. It seems to jump to a conclusions about the reporters’ Chinese levels and familiarity with China, and there’s nothing there to support it. And whether it’s this author’s opinion or an author he’s quoting, sloppiness is sloppiness.
But again, sorry if I came across kind of strong – it’s just part of a long and ongoing pattern with this writer that is both annoying and unethical. If you read through that comment thread you will see what I mean. This is the best summary of the kind of mischief he can pull.
Again for the record, I believe the Tiananmen Square story is a classic example of the media and mythmakers creating something of a fantasy, a black-and-white picture that is full of distortions and myths – and that’s on both sides, the Western and the Chinese media. Of course, the iron-clad secrecy the party has enforced on the subject has only made these myths increasingly intractable and more prone to embellishment. I much prefer reading Phiilip Cunningham or John Pomfret on these topics than someone doing google searches with one hand while thumbing through a thesaurus with the other hand to make sure they don’t get caught plagiarizing.
Thanks for letting me explain where I was coming from.
I’m afraid that Kai took some excerpts from the MAJ’s essay and I think you are putting his quote into context. The 4 paragraphs before this one explains the reasons for the students’ protest and they were not ‘democracy’ related. And I quote from his essay:
‘The demonstrations cannot be considered purely anti-government, as many protesters think of themselves as a kind of loyal opposition,’ wrote David Holley for The Los Angeles Times, April 23. The student movement, he later added, was ‘aimed at accelerating the process of economic and political reform within the Communist Party and under the Communist Party’s leadership of the Chinese system.’21
Ma Qingguo, a psychology student who worked as part of the so-called ‘student police’ in Tiananmen, told the Australian historian Ross Terrill, that their ‘demands boiled down to something rather simple. That the government affirm [their] movement was patriotic, not turmoil,’ and that the government acknowledge their intentions as ‘not seeking to overthrow them.’22
Many of the students quite clearly confused the notion of democracy with the attitudes and consumer values of Western culture. The Beijing Normal University student, Wu’er Kaixi, Chair of the Beijing Student’s Autonomous Federation, not only expressed repeatedly to foreign journalists his desire to join the Chinese Communist Party,23 but also believed that what most students really wanted were ‘Nike shoes,’ and for the guys, enough ‘free time to take [their] girlfriends to a bar.’24
Many of those who turned out to support the movement no doubt did so simply because that was what everyone else seemed to be doing. One Beijing University student, Lao Yujun for example, told Ross Terrill that ‘because a lot of the younger students from [his] campus were going to Tiananmen Square, [that he] wanted to be there with them.’25 He also told Terrill that he had decided to join the hunger strike simply ‘to find out what one was like.’26
Look, speak to anyone who was in the city at the time – was there sustained gunfire in the area of the square over a period of at least an hour? Yes. Were the soldiers carrying live ammunition? Yes. Were Beijing hospitals filled with people who had sustained gunshot wounds? Again yes. And yes, there were plenty of witnesses in and around the square who say they saw dozens of people shot and killed.
Me, I’ll take the word of someone like Kate Adie (the highly respected BBC journalist who was wounded BY A GUNSHOT at whilst covering the shootings) over an internet fantabulist with a history of emailing people asking for pictures of their penises.
FOARP, you haven’t read MAJ’s essay, have you? You haven’t read his sources either, have you? You haven’t even read the link Elliott shared. If you have, your comments here suggest you reject them all, even when they specifically address critical premises you’re depending on: “there were plenty of witnesses in and around the square who say they saw dozens of people shot and killed.”
You can take the word of Kate Adie just as MAJ is taking the word of the other sources he’s quoted in his essay. Have you considered that the two sources could both be correct and mutually exclusive? Either way, after everything you have said, you actually haven’t gone about challenging the arguments and evidences/testimonies supplied by MAJ’s article. You’re disagreeing, but without making a good argument for it. We can only weigh your argument relative to MAJ’s (or in my case, the arguments and evidences I learned from my professors and research back at Cal) when you actually give one.
I was not there, but live in Beijing and have spoken to the parents of friends that live in the area. Basically they state that the area was under ‘seige’, the military had it surrounded. They did hear sporadic gunfire before the massacre, and on that day, the people were told to ,”lie down on the ground.” And then, firing ensued, not all of the students apparently had time to hit the deck. I cannot provide references and dont need them, I have seen the eyes of the people who have related these and other stories of the time, and find that to be enough.
Stuart,
“There are no claims, arguments, or facts in your top ‘twenty’ that I wasn’t already aware of”
This is a rather self-centered comment that seems to indicate that so long as YOU (i.e. Stuart) were already aware of these “claims, arguments, or facts” then the author is wasting his time. The point of the article is there are two sides to every story and contrary to the narrative espoused by the Western media, there is certainly another well documented, but relatively unknown narrative that is equally important. This article is written for those very people who are interested in hearing both sides of the story (i.e. they do not already know it) not for the “Stuarts” out there who seem to know everything.
“Some hold more water than others…”
That’s great, and that is the point of the article – that the average person living in a Western society is exposed to only one side of the story, whether intentionally (media bias) or unintentionally (poor research). The same can be said for the Western take on Tiananmen, some hold more water than others. Debating which arguments are more credible is absolutely worthwhile but at least have access to the arguments from BOTH sides.
“…but none change the impact 6/4 had on Chinese history or the need for the CCP to stop leading its people in a chorus of silence”
No one, least of all the author was trying to push any sort of claim that Tiananmen was not historic. It was accepted that Tiananmen had massive reverberations that are still being felt today but the author wanted to go and explore the alternative narrative that exists. Whether or not the CCP is “leading its people in a chorus of silence” is irrelevant. You’re broadening the topic and muddying the main thrust of the article.
When you singled out Gregory Clark’s view, it would have behooved you to demonstrate in some way WHY Clark’s view was wrong.
OMG, the brilliance, it is blinding.
*a lone tear rolls off chin*
I thought about it and I think that Democracy died in China at 1989 not because China decided to put down the protesters, but when the US and the other Western Countries response to China for putting down the protesters. There were certainly room for further democratic reform under Zhao Ziyang if the Western countries didn’t push the China toward democracy without turning the country upside down. No doubt that China would be a democracy by now but I think it won’t happen for at least 30 years.
Worthy of consideration is a piece by Jay Mathews, who was Beijing Bureau Chief for the Washington Post. The piece was entitled “The Myth of Tiananmen And the Price of a Passive Press” and was originally Columbia Journalism Review, September/October 1998, but it seems to have been removed from the CJR archives. Now located here:
http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/Tiananmen/tiananmen.html
Great link, Elliott. It certainly lends more credence to the ‘noboby died in The Square’ argument than M A Jones’ article. This is also good: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FF08Ad07.html
But such writing, well-balanced pieces though they are, far from prove the point. If only the Chinese government would allow a little discourse such ambiguities could be cleared up once and for all. At the end of the day it would only change the exact location of mass murder, and the coining of a replacement for ‘Tiananmen massacre’.
Once again – if no-one died at the square and its surrounding area, then who were the people taken to the hospitals? Who was the man who Kate Adie saw shot dead in front of her? It beggars belief that there could have been gunfire directed into the crowds for so long without death resulting.
What exactly happened in the square is unclear, but what happened in central Beijing is not: it was the large-scale shooting of unarmed people.
FOARP, I think the sources given thus far quite clearly acknowledge that there were people shot that night. They just say it wasn’t IN the square itself but rather on ChangAn road. The idea is that “Tiananmen Square Massacre” is a misnomer insofar as it evokes imagery of it happening in the square when there is evidence and testimony contradicting that such happened IN the square. You’re confusing the issue (hopefully not intentionally) by responding angrily above with “if no-one died at the square and its surrounding area” when others never said people didn’t die in the “surrounding area.” Either that or you need to specify what you mean by “surrounding area.”
Again, MAJ’s piece references several sources discussing the gunfire/shooting in the square. You appear to disagree with them, but you’re not offering anything for us to go on other than your insistence that anyone who doesn’t accept your word “beggars belief.” MAJ’s piece is partly about delving into what happened and trying to figure out what did or did not happen and why so many believe certain things that may not be true even to this day. You’re not really addressing the points so much as you’re just rejecting them.
Ooops! It should have looked like this (feel free to delete the one just posted):
A generic reply to the well-meaning, the confused, and the irritated.
It was a great pleasure to wake up this morning to a lively discussion here. And let me say, Kai, I think this is a better place for it.
Kai
Great, so if you have objections, why are you refusing to bring them up with MAJ and instead hiding here?
I’m neither refusing nor hiding; I just choose not to. I explained in my previous reply that MAJ has something of a ‘track record’ and, as I guessed he might, Richard has pointed you in the direction of some of his past shenanigans.
LoL, the old poisoning the well fallacy … let me remind everyone else how lousy your track record is.
Hmmm. You certainly like your fallacies, Kai. If you look a little deeper you’ll sometimes find that what at first appears to be a fallacy is anything but, this being a case in point. While ‘my track record’ is subject to flaws and emotions (in common with all human efforts), oftentimes leading to a “tendency to swerve to one side” (as Richard put it), I do have the capacity to reflect on criticism/comment before responding to it. I humbly suggest that you’ve abandoned this skill in some of your replies, which seem to contain accusations coloured by a couple of recent disagreements.
I’m fine with comments.
Cool.
…did you just want to speak without listening?
Don’t be silly. I refer you to my answer above.
If you disagree with MAJ’s “spin” on 6/4, please cite sources to prove your point instead of using yet another fallacy: appealing to common belief.
The Fallacy Accusation Strategy (FAS) – as I’ve decided to call it – is, I note, being used increasingly on blogs these days in an attempt to discredit dissenting opinion without addressing the points raised – probably a ‘fallacy’ in its own right.
I’ll use citation when something I say demands that I should, although on a general note I agree that supporting links and sources lend credibility to arguments.
You’re not addressing MAJ’s argument. You’re entirely sidestepping doing so by whining over here instead of directly confronting him with your objections.
Wrong. I’m questioning whether or not he even has an argument, and raising a broader issue of who or what is served by “separating fact from fiction” on this issue. And this, I reassert, is a better place to have that discussion – especially since you made a post out of it (glad that you did, too).
Whining? Are you perhaps guilty of the Negative Emotion Attribution Fallacy (NEAF)?
Why is it that every time you comment here, you absolutely must misunderstand, misinterpret, or otherwise misconstrue a major point?
I don’t. Is it possible that these are just your misperceptions based on your missing of my points?
MAJ’s piece does not suggest that the incident was “wildly overblown by the western media.” It suggests that the western media’s presentation of the incident was significantly distorted.
A fine distinction, to be sure.
You’ve seen fit to disagree with this major point of his (MAJ’s) first piece, ignore all of his evidence, allude to having evidence of your own…
What I did, in fact, was to raise doubts about his motivations based on past performance, and to point out – quite accurately I observe from the comments over there – that his article taps into the psyche of those who would prefer to switch the Tiananmen focus from holding the CCP to account to a trashing of the western media.
That’s bullshit rhetoric of the fenqing variety.
Calm down. It’s nothing of the kind.
Please offer some of those witnesses or citations addressing and refuting, for example, MAJ’s contention that members of the Western media itself felt they intentionally failed to report objectively…because in part of their own ethnocentric bias.
There’s no need; nobody is refuting the existence of media bias. It actually speaks well of the western media that they are able to reflect on their own journalism in this way. Again, try to get a grasp of how ‘western media bias’ is being used in this instance.
Can you do that, stuart? You know, offer a counter ARGUMENT, not just a CLAIM.
I’m not obliged to offer a counter-argument, and such a contribution is not pertinent to my point (see above).
I often get away with a lot of fallacies. You just don’t have a knack for identifying them.
Either that, or I don’t pursue them because it’s not a hobby of mine ;)
But hey, stuart, I won’t hold my breath.
And you really shouldn’t. I can assure you, as one who was sucked through an underwater sluice into a reservoir in Yangshuo a few years ago, it’s not a good idea. Luckily for you I survived to give you the benefit of my insight.
I’ve said before, stuart, you’re more interested in changing the subject instead of actually responding.
I fail to see how I’ve done that. On the contrary, I’ve served as a catalyst to raise the level of debate here. As you’re inclined to point out, issues are not black and white, and there is simply no way my replies can be considered ‘off topic’.
Since you’re incorrigible, I’ll just have to content myself with calling you out on that each time.
Since your English is better than mine, I’ll just have to content myself with using a dictionary for ‘incorrigible’.
Sam Wong
This is a rather self-centered comment that seems to indicate that so long as YOU (i.e. Stuart) were already aware of these “claims, arguments, or facts” then the author is wasting his time.
Nope. It reflects that most people with more than a passing interest in Tiananmen are aware of these arguments.
The point of the article is there are two sides to every story and contrary to the narrative espoused by the Western media…
On the surface, perhaps. But I think there’s more going on than that, as I’ve explained.
No one, least of all the author was trying to push any sort of claim … but the author wanted to go and explore the alternative narrative that exists. You’re broadening the topic and muddying the main thrust of the article.
And I’m saying that this article’s agenda and its author should not necessarily be taken at face value.
When you singled out Gregory Clark’s view, it would have behooved you to demonstrate in some way WHY Clark’s view was wrong.
On a general note, yes it would have. But then if you’d read what I wrote carefully you’d have seen that I never categorically stated that Clark’s view was wrong.
I knew you would see this and probably refer to MAJ’s history, and I’m pleased that you did, because my recollections of those Peking Duck episodes are a bit hazy. I only know, on past evidence, he’s not what he appears to be.
Richard
Of course, the iron-clad secrecy the party has enforced on the subject has only made these myths increasingly intractable and more prone to embellishment.
Absolutely. My argument is that we will see an increasing tendency to ‘expose’ these myths and characterize them as ‘western propaganda’, not for the sake of uncovering historical truth, but to serve the interests of those that have a vested interest in hiding it.
There’s a big audience out there only too happy to pounce on the idea of 6/4 as a ‘western’ fabrication. That will take us further from a true understanding of the events of 20 years ago, not closer to it.
I too look forward to reading more excerpts from Cunningham’s Tiananmen Moon prior to its release. He, at least, was most definitely there.
stuart,
Uh, no, it was still a fallacy and it was still a fallacy you committed. I don’t think you quite understand what “fallacy” means, stuart. Back to Rhetoric 101 you go! *waves*
I disagree. At the very least, to me (and maybe Sam as well), your reflections amount to nothing. I’ve never seen you own up to your mistakes either in your exchanges with me, whereas I respect Richard a whole lot because he has the humility to admit and acknowledge his own mistakes or qualify his statements. You, not so much.
Wasn’t I the first to accuse you of doing this, of you misinterpreting and misconstruing everything I say as being anti-foreigner/anti-Westerner simply because of an allusion I made in one of the first posts you knee-jerkingly responded to on CNR? Ah, yes, it was. How cute of you to turn it on me.
The difference, however, my dear stuart, is that my criticisms actually reflect what you wrote and the context of what you’ve written, whereas what you criticized me was unsupported by the context of what I’ve written but supported by your woeful reading comprehension and subsequent mistaken preconceptions you’ve developed of me.
Yes, the above is me flaming you. I’ll get to responding to your “arguments” below.
Wow, that was a lot of bullshit about why you don’t need to substantiate your dissenting opinion yet expect others to take you seriously. It was nonetheless amusing to watch you fabricate acronyms to counter the fallacies I referenced you committing. It’s kinda like me proving your mistakes and you thinking up new names to call me instead of actually addressing the issues raised. The “you’re avoiding the issues I raised for saying I’m avoiding the issues I raised” is a cute tactic too. I hear “No, you! No, you!” ringing in my ears.
Wow, so I guess I really can just get away with flaming you because you actually DIDN’T bring up any arguments or substantiating points after all! We’re not going to have a meaningful discussion if you keep doing that.
Yes, I figured. That’s kinda why I wrote these:
You’ve proven me right yet again, for having done so yet again. Doing so yet again further reinforces what I then said:
So I’m calling you out again on doing what I expected you to do. So long as you continue being this way, stuart, you can go ahead and “expect” that of me as well.
Uh, no, you haven’t. You succeeded in poisoning the well, with Richard coming around to wipe your ass to actually explain the relevance and significance of your fallacy. You also succeeded in vocally dismissing MAJ’s essay and information to replace it with your own argument/”point”, but then insist upon not having to justify your argument/”point”. You served as white noise, with your biggest accomplishment being to waste everyone’s time with explanations and retorts of why you don’t need to be held accountable to your own position after people take the time to entertain you.
Kai,
For a man who can string a decent sentence together you do yourself no favours by getting angry with someone who doesn’t share your opinion. Of course it could be a deceptively but premeditated confrontational style (wasted on me, btw), but I don’t think so. Therefore I’ll continue to shed some light on a few dark corners:
“Uh, no, it was still a fallacy and it was still a fallacy you committed.”
Only insofar as you fail to perceive that I didn’t.
“I disagree. At the very least, to me … your reflections amount to nothing. I’ve never seen you own up to your mistakes…”
Your disagreement I embrace; your respect I can live with or without. As for the mistakes thing, you’re very wide of the mark.
“Wasn’t I the first to accuse you of doing this, of you misinterpreting and misconstruing everything I say … Ah, yes, it was. How cute of you to turn it on me.”
Really? You accused me of something? How terrible! I haven’t turned anything on you, Kai. It just seems that you can’t get past the fact I don’t accept either your analysis of my character or the implications of MAJ’s essay.
“… supported by your woeful reading comprehension and subsequent mistaken preconceptions you’ve developed of me.”
Quite simply not true, as I’ve made clear before.
“Wow, that was a lot of bullshit about why you don’t need to substantiate your dissenting opinion yet expect others to take you seriously.”
No, it wasn’t. Does the Dalai Lama need to substantiate with empirical evidence the fact that he’s not a terrorist just because Beijing says he is? Exactly. I await with anticipation your FAS to this response – I’m sure you have one.
“It was nonetheless amusing to watch you fabricate acronyms to counter the fallacies I referenced you committing.”
Again, I could reference the profile of a serial killer, but it doesn’t make you one. It just lowers the bar, so I refrain.
“I hear “No, you! No, you!” ringing in my ears.”
I’ve been telling you all along you have perception issues. Nothing a good syringing won’t fix ;)
“You succeeded in poisoning the well, with Richard coming around to wipe your ass …”
A touch unnecessary, old sport. While I hold Richard in high regard, I assure you we’re not that close. Further, I am neither the harbinger of toxins nor the employer of a personal sanitation assistant.
“You served as white noise, …”
Would that make your contribution ‘yellow fever’?
“…with your biggest accomplishment being to waste everyone’s time with explanations and retorts of why you don’t need to be held accountable to your own position…”
It’s not a waste of time when your position is misrepresented.
“Guess what, you’re now bitching that I’m bitching because you have a vested interest in continuing your bitching.”
Pass the dictionary, Jeeves, there’s a good chap. Now, let me see … B-I-T-C-H-I-N-G … well, really!! Would never have been allowed in my day!
LoL, you think I’m angry because you don’t share my opinion? No, I’m frustrated with how consistently you misunderstand, misconstrue, and misrepresent other people’s position in the process of badly and self-righteously “arguing” your opinion.
You sure you read MAJ’s piece? Remember what I said about your reading comprehension? It sucks. There is no argument in MAJ’s piece that is remotely similar to your fallacious analogy of the Dalai Lama. His piece uses quotes of Western journalists testifying that they themselves felt their reporting of Tiananmen was distorted. If you disagree with the suggestion this makes, you need to refute the testimony of these sources. You can, of course, just say you disagree and leave it at that, but doing so makes it very hard for me to take you seriously because it’s paramount to you pretending evidence contrary to your professed opinion doesn’t exist. You’re trying to argue something by keeping your head in the sand.
I didn’t say you were. I just said you made a mess and he cleaned it up for you.
“No, I’m frustrated with how consistently you misunderstand, misconstrue, and misrepresent other people’s position”
Then you have no occasion to feel frustrated whatsoever.
“There is no argument in MAJ’s piece that is remotely similar to your fallacious analogy of the Dalai Lama.”
It was analogous, obviously, of your accusations of fallacy.
“His piece uses quotes of Western journalists testifying that they themselves felt their reporting of Tiananmen was distorted.”
I’ve read it, so what’s your point?
My points were twofold. First, the article’s information is nothing new and over-emphasises the ‘western media bias’ angle, thereby making it a likely target for adoption by certain quarters looking to portray 6/4 as nothing more than a skirmish propagandised by the west.
“Mark Anthony Jones’ essay aims to shed more light on Tiananmen…”
Second, given MAJ’s history of trolling (of which you were clearly unaware), his aims are not necessarily as clearcut as you believe.
I’m still not quite sure what your problem was with either point.
You’re either not reading, stuart, or you’re incapable of understanding. As such, I’m officially tired of entertaining your brand of disingenuous absurdity. I take solace in knowing I’m not the only one to think such about you. Cheers.
Kai,
The botom line is I raised a couple of valid, on-topic points that you’ve taken exception to, or refuse to acknowledge, for what I can only believe are personal reasons.
I sense your fatigue, but then taking random swings at innocent civilians is not a very efficient use of energy, is it?
For my part, I’m disappointed that someone of obvious intelligence is not prepared to engage more with someone whose views they disagree with.
Which is not to say I won’t be back, of course.
This was the bottom line, from my very first response to your very first comment:
Disagreeing with your penchant for fallacies does not mean I disagree with your views. You keep making this mistake. This is one major reason why you have a reading comprehension problem.
Comment deleted for insistent stupidity. Please feel free to use your own blog or other blogs to voice your displeasure. – Kai
As usual, I see that Richard continues, after all of these years, to spam his Fantabulist thread everywhere I post! I’m both disappointed and yet, strangely enough, rather amused.
Richard – you are just being plain nasty, admit it. It’s really not necessary. You’re alerting everyone here to an event that happened back in 2004/5, and yes, I have apologised to you countless times, both publically and in private emails that I have sent you. So why can’t you forgive? Why the need to continue with all the attacks? What’s wrong with integrating quotations from both primary and secondary sources in order to create a discourse of my own? Isn’t this what most writers of discourse do? On my China Discourse site, I even carefully footnote all of my sources, as I did with this essay on Tiananmen. That way people can check the sources that I use for themselves.
I really don’t understand why I am being attacked for writing detailed comments that cite all of my sources. It’s truly puzzling.
I’m certainly prepared to forgive you for having encouraged the kind of cyber tribalism that amounts to bullying – posting a thread about me titled “The Fantabulist”, lifting a photo of a crying baby to accompany it, and then inviting the mob to go on the hunt, daggers and spears in hand.
None of my blog comments (since being banned from your site all those years ago) are stolen. I instead am in the habit of synthesising a number of readings to create discourses of my own. In doing so I now cite all of the sources I use. What is wrong with that? How is that stealing? It’s not stealing – it’s not plagiarism.
I have, since our online dispute all those years ago, engaged in a number of productive online debates on various sites. I no longer have the kind of time that I had on my hands back in the days when I was a regular pain on your site, so I tend to engage only very occasionally in online debates. In fact, I can count the number of real online debates that I’ve had since 2005 on one hand. The first took place on the American Public Broadcasting Service online discussion forum set up to take comments in response to the television series, “China From The Inside”, back in January 2007. I did not plagiarise any of my comments on that site, nor did I leave any comments under other names. I did however, integrate many quotations from a good variety of sources – both from online sources and by typing in quotations from books and journal articles that I own in print – in order to support my arguments. This is not plagiarism as far as I’m concerned. In fact, this is how most students and academics produce works of discourse: they read a large variety of primary and secondary sources so that they can synthesise all of the various arguments to produce assessments of their own. It’s ridiculous of you, to be frank, to try to dismiss this way of constructing comments and essays as plagiarism. Just about every academic book and student essay ever written is plagiarised if this is how you define plagiarism.
The style that I use to write the essays I have posted on my China Discourse website mirrors the style I used as a university student. None of the professors and doctors who assessed my research essays ever accussed me of plagiarism and more often than not they awarded me with High Distinctions. My Honours History thesis, which examined the differential treatment of men and women by the 18th century British criminal law courts, was likewise awarded a First Class. To be awarded even a pass, the thesis must be original. It was assessed by an Oxford scholar, and again, I constructed it in much the same way that I have constructed my China essays – I use my research skills to locate a variety of both primary and secondary sources, I then read them and synthesise the various arguments to construct assessments of my own, quoting from the various sources read to support my arguments.
The response to my online debate with David Meanwell of the London-based Tibet Information Network on the PBS discussion forum, benefited us both, and I think a good number of people enjoyed keeping up with our discussion. Professor Suzanne Ogden, who is a China specialist who teaches at Northeastern University in Boston, left a comment on that discussion forum, addressed to me in response to my comments, which read:
“Well done, M.A. Jones! A remarkably coherent and incisive commentary on the Tibet issue. Australia’s N.S.W. Department of Education and Training should be very pleased with you as an employee. China is lucky to have you as a teacher, and PBS is very fortunate to have had you participate in such an extended manner on this very important issue, which is usually misrepresented to the public. Tibet has become such a political issue that most commentators, not excluding academicians and journalists, lead with their emotional ideological commitments rather than with the facts and reality. I would just add to your many sources one author that should not be overlooked: Donald S. Lopez, Jr., who is an authority on Tibetan Buddhism and has written about it extensively.”
You will find this comment on page two of the thread in question, and anyone who suspects me of having written this comment myself can easily track down an email address for S. Ogden, and ask her themselves whether or not she posted the comment.
She hardly regarded my style of constructing comments as plagiarism, or as in any way lacking in originality.
Only abut a month ago, Professor Daniel A. Bell, another Chinese specialist who currently teaches at Tsinghua University, left a comment on my China Discourse site in response to my essay on human rights. He was alerted to my site by Kate Merkel-Hess, another China specialist who edits the China Beat blog. This is what he wrote:
“Dear Mr. Jones,
Thanks for your interesting and well-written essays. I generally agree with your perspective and there is further support for your point that East Asians generally value communal solidarity more than Westerners from political value surveys carried out by Asian Barometer.
I’m impressed by the thoroughness of your research on China and human rights. But if you want to read more on the philosophy and the history of human rights thinking in China, I’d recommend Stephen Angle’s book on the topic published a few years ago (by Cambridge University Press, forget title) and on China’s recent human rights development I’d recommend articles by WANG Shaoguang published in Modern China and Boundary (all in 2008).
Good luck with your research! Now I must return to my student papers.
Best regards,
Daniel A. Bell
Philosophy Department, Humanity School, Tsinghua University, Beijing.”
Rather than dismissing my essays as lacking in originality or as being merely a string of quotes, he instead described them as being “interestng”, “well-written” and “thoroughly researched”. And again, anyone suspecting me of being Professor Bell can easily track down his email address and ask him for themselves whether or not he wrote the above comment.
Likewise, Professor Jeffrey Wasserstrom, another China specialist and co-editor of the China Beat blog, occasionally corresponds with me via email and last December he sent me a copy of his new book on Shanghai for me to review. My review was published by the George Mason University’s History News Network site. Again, I employed my usual writing style, integrating quotations not only from his book, but also from other works like Marshall Berman’s “All That Is Solid Melts Into Air”. The editors had no problems with my style. They accepted my submission, praising my review in their email to me as being “very nicely crafted.” Jeff Wasserstom said the same thing in an email he sent me, dated 8/12/08:
“Wow, that’s not just a very flattering review but a very smart one as well, much more of an engagement with the book’s themes. It is also just a nice piece of writing.”
I have the email in my inbox, should anyone doubt my honesty! I’ll most probably me meeting up with Professor Wasserstrom here in Sydney this coming July, as I’ll be attending a conference on China at the University of Sydney that he will be addressing.
Dan Harris of the China Law blog also appreciates my regular blog comments on his site, and he even reviewed by book. This is what he wrote on his site, April 12, 2009:
“It has taken me forever to read the book, ‘Flowing Waters Never Stale’, by Mark Anthony Jones. On the one hand, I really wanted to read the book because Mark is a long time China Law Blog reader and a very thoughtful commenter here. On the other hand, I worried his book would be too intellectual and since it is subtitled, “Journeys Through China,” I thought it would be too much the travel book. So it sat.
But I spent most of this weekend at the office on a big project and I started reading it as a diversion and I ended up hardly putting it down until I finished it. I wish I had read it sooner because I actually really liked it.
It is not so much a travel book as it is Mark’s very thoughtful observations on much of what he saw in China while living there from 2002 to 2007. Mark looks closely at various aspects of China and (just as he does in his comments on this blog), he looks at them from various perspectives. It has no particular agenda on how one should view China, beyond seeking that we look at it fairly and in context. It often looks at things from both a Western and a Chinese perspective, with Mark’s Chinese girlfriend, helping immensely on the Chinese side.
It really does make you feel like you are in China and I heartily recommend it.”
Richard – you will no doubt be familiar with the past contributor to your Peking Duck site who wrote under the name of Sojourner. He too happens to be a professional academic historian, based at a university in Hong Kong. Rather than dismissing my comments and essays as having been plagiarised or as being little more than a string of quotes, he too finds them engaging, though unlike Ogden and Bell, he disagrees with my overall assessments. Sojourner was around at the height of our online war of four-to-five years ago and at the time was well aware of The Fantabulist thread of yours – yet he was long ago able to forgive me for my sins. He trusts me enough now to send me photos of himself and his family on vacations, he trusted me enough long ago to reveal to me his full name and workplace, and he has even sent me a draft chapter of his forthcoming book to read over and to comment on – I won’t mention the title of the book, as that may give away his identity, but I can tell you that it examines British textual representations of China and the Chinese from the years 1880-1940. Sojourner isn’t concerned then, about any possibility of me plagiarisnig his yet to be published work. Why should he be? If Sojourner can forgive and forget, and even open his heart and engage with me as a friend, then Richard why can’t you I wonder? After all, Sojourner had just cause to be angry with me too at one stage during that Fantabulist period, as I did steal his handle, posting a few comments on your site under his name! He no longer has any hard feelings, for he recognised that entire episode for what it was – me behaving badly under pressure, with my back against the wall, under attack for an assortment of behaviours that I both did and did not commit.
But back to my post-Fantabulist online debates. Apart from the PBS discussion forum debate with David Meanwell, I also engaged in two separate debates with Amban on the China Law Blog, almost two years ago now. Amban was yet another contributor to your Peking Duck blog back in the days of the Fantabulist outbreak, and yet he too was able to engage with me in a few friendly and productive debates – one about claims of cannibalism in China during the Cultural Revolution, the other about the events that took place in Beijing back in June 1989. He accepted the legitimacy and value of me integrating quotations from a variety of sources in order to support my arguments. Why wouldn’t he?
The only other online debate that I have had the time to engage in since our initial dispute was the one I had very recently on the Fool’s Mountain site, which was on the issue of Tibet. Most people there, apart from FOARP (another of your Peking Duck contributors from the days of the Fantabulist beat-up) appear to have valued my contributions to the discussion. They seem not to have any problems with me presenting lengthy and detailed comments with quotatons from various sources integrated into them to support my assessments. I really don’t see why you should have a problem with me posting such comments on other people’s blogs.
I really don’t understand why you have suddenly decided to launch this attack. I certainly haven’t done or said anything to provoke it. It seems to me as though you are just being nasty – that you are acting out of spite. This is just not necessary Richard. I have apologised to you countless times for having failed to always adequately cite my use of sources back during the pre-Fantabulist thread days and I have since taken the care to cite all my sources whenever leaving comments on other sites so as to avoid more allegations of plagiarism. Yet still you keep following me around the blogsphere like a bad smell, spamming your Fantabulist thread wherever and whenever I leave comments. Most people are tired of your constant ongoing attempts after all these years to continue attacking and smearing me. Dan Harris refuses to allow such attacks against to be posted on his website, as does Professor Wasserstrom, who has even invited me to write guest posts for The China Beat. I don’t have the time at present – maybe later in the year.
Enough of the silly personal attacks and constant attempts at smear Richard, O.K. You’re becoming awfully boring now.
As for your criticism of my essay: the point being made by the Harvard University-based media study – The Joan Shorenstein Barone Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy – is that all eight American-based media organisations sampled tended to define the student movement as a ‘pro-democracy’ one, even though ‘the majority’ of banners, T-shirts and symbols used by the student protesters were in Chinese, not English – their demands ‘reflect[ing] Chinese cultural norms, rather than Western ideas.
The last part of this sentence you seem to have ignored. The point is clear as far as I’m concerned: the media focussed on English-language banners, which appropriated words like “democracy” to excite the interest and support of foreigners – most people sitting in US their living rooms after all, cannot read Chinese. The bulk of student banners, however, were written in Chinese, and these, as I said, expressed mostly other demands – ones that reflected Chinese cultural values rather than a desire for a Western political system. This, together with what was expressed in a good variety of interviews with the students themeselves (as I have thoroughly documented), provide overwheliming empirical evidence to show that the movement was NOT a ‘pro-democracy’ one, as was commonly reported at the time.
Simple!
Good luck Richard, by the way, with your new op-ed job at the Global Times – I mean that sincerely, despite the fact that I find your need to continually smear me to be both nasty and annoying….
Kai wrote: “It is unfortunate nonetheless that such a piece is tainted and potentially undermined by the writer’s own negative but self-wrought reputation.”
But as I explained in my above comment, my reputation is actually very good throughout the English-language China-related blogsphere. Only Richard of the Peking Duck, and a few of his old-time regulars, dislike me. Their constant ongoing (and totally unprovoked) attempts at character assassination over the years, and especially in recent times, have simply failed to have much of an impact. Richard is simply beginning to look like a cyber bully in the eyes of many. This I think is a great pity, as I truly would like to normalise relations with Richard, but he seems to have an attitude problem. That’s his problem, not mine!
MAJ, I’m cool with you saying your piece since Richard said his. Beyond that, I’d rather not get involved in whatever it is you and Richard have between you guys. This post is about the points espoused in your essay. Now that you’ve offered your side, I prefer that we all try to get back to that topic.
Kai wrote: “I prefer that we all try to get back to that topic.”
I think that’s an excellent idea!
I shall conclude by simply adding this: my essays are NOT plagiarised. People can see that clearly for themselves. They are a product of MY research, MY comprehension, MY synthesis, and in the end, my crafting together of all that I synthesise allows me to formulate assessments of MY own. People can either agree or disagree with my assessments – that’s fine. I cite all sources so that readers can check my use of evidence for themselves, and so that I can avoid further accusations of plagiarism.
If people are interested in my philosophical approach to understanding China, they ought to read the Introductory essay to my chinadiscourse.net website. I’m not ideologically driven – rather the opposite in fact, I’m a value pluralist.
I look forward to reading your response Kai, the Part II of my essay on the Beijing spring of 1989.
This is my first comment on this blog, so I’d like to take the opportunity to thank Kai for providing this forum for the exchange of views.
Mark, I don’t want to go into the argument you have with Richard as it predates my commenting on the Peking Duck and has nothing to do with me, but I would like to ask you about your dealings with academia. You seem in your reply to be extremely interested in the academic world and justly proud of some of the feedback from various academics that you have shared with us. I was wondering then whether in fact the blogosphere might not necessarily be the best avenue for your thoughts, given it’s transitory and naturally superficial nature, and whether you have given serious thought to studying for a MA and/or PhD, which would naturally lead onto the opportunity to publish not only online but also in peer reviewed journals? Perhaps you would find a better outlet for your thoughts amongst other experts in your field whose considered insights and comments on your work would doubtless help hone your ideas rather more than the bearpit atmosphere blogs/forums tend to provide. I am not of course suggesting you should not comment or share your articles, I am simply intrigued as to whether you have given this any serious thought.
Mmmm, bearpits…
*adjusts loincloth*
Kai – I don’t think FOARP has ever read any of my essays – Richard either for that matter – at least not in full. They simply dismiss everything I write immediately as having been quick copy and paste jobs knocked together – even going so far as to label me a plagiarist. Their purpose here is simply to discredit my assessments by attacking me personally. That should be clear to most by now.
FOARP is totally WRONG when he says that foreign journalists witnessed students being killed in the Square itself – one or two claimed they witnessed such an event, but they were quickly put in place for making things up. As Jay Mathews pointed out in his Columbia Journalism Review article, “A BBC reporter watching from a high floor of the Beijing Hotel said he saw soldiers shooting at students at the monument in the center of the square. But as the many journalists who tried to watch the action from that relatively safe vantage point can attest, the middle of the square is not visible from the hotel.”
The Hong Kong press reports that FOARP mention have also been discredited beyond all doubt – and long ago! Jay Mathews again:
“Probably the most widely disseminated account appeared first in the Hong Kong press: a Qinghua University student described machine guns mowing down students in front of the Monument to the People‘s Heroes in the middle of the square. The New York Times gave this version prominent display on June 12, just a week after the event, but no evidence was ever found to confirm the account or verify the existence of the alleged witness. Times reporter Nicholas Kristof challenged the report the next day, in an article that ran on the bottom of an inside page; the myth lived on. Student leader Wu‘er Kaixi said he had seen 200 students cut down by gunfire, but it was later proven that he left the square several hours before the events he described allegedly occurred.”
It is now very widely accepted as fact that nobody died in the Sqaure – even The Washington Post and New York Times now hold this line – they have since at least 1998. The Washington Post and The New York Times both explained very explicitly that no one died in Tiananmen Square during the 1989 crackdown, though as Jay Mathews notes, “these were short explanations at the end of long articles: and so did “little to kill the myth.”
Part II of my essay will carefully document the course of events that took place on June 3-4, and will draw from a very wide variety of sources – the most important of which are the Tiananmen Papers and the declassified US State Department intelligence documents (which, by the way, largely corroborate the official Chinese central government version of events – even when it comes to the overall death figure).
I also plan to empirically demonstrate that the army exercised considerable restraint, and panicked and began firing ONLY after they themselves were violently attacked by mobs of mostly militant worker activists.
I will conclude by drawing on the theories of Jean Baudrillard and Guy Debord as analytical tools: just as Baudrillard argued that the (first) Gulf War did not happen – that it was a simulated war (a simulacra) manufactured by the mass media and presented as a spectacle for consumption, I will argue that a student-led “pro-democracy” movement was also simulated, as was a massacre in the Square – all presented as spectacle for mass consumption. What really happened was quite different from what was widely reported to have happened. Of course, such simulated spectacle needs to be judged in the context of the Cold War.
I could make a similar case regarding SARS – which I lived through in China – and which I recognised all along as a media-inspired storm. SARS was less lethal than many ordinary strains of flu, yet even once this was clearly confirmed, the media machine continued for many weeks to create irrational fear and panic in the interests of maintaining their spectacle.
The (first) Gulf War did not happen. The “Tiananmen Square Massacre” did not happen. SARS did not happen.
I will argue that a student-led “pro-democracy” movement was also simulated, as was a massacre in the Square – all presented as spectacle for mass consumption. What really happened was quite different from what was widely reported to have happened.
At the very least it has to be debatable rather than categorical that “nobody died in the Square”. That aside, your characterisation of 6/4 and the events leading up to the tragedy is that of a media-inspired ‘spectacular’. My issue with that line of thinking is that, intentionally or otherwise, it tends to downplay both the significance of the event as a momentum change in modern Chinese history and the need for the government to be held to account for their actions at that time.
On the latter point, your essay can be interpreted as a piece that deflects responsibility for 6/4 somewhat, and will therefore (as is already clear) be all too readily embraced by those conditioned to the idea of a ‘China-bashing western media’. In that sense I feel that it may reinforce existing polarized thought rather than serve to open minds to the truth of Tiananmen.
Stuart wrote: “Elliott. It certainly lends more credence to the ‘noboby died in The Square’ argument than M A Jones’ article.”
This just goes to show that you haven’t even read my essay very carefully, as I actually draw on Jay Mathew’s opinion piece in the Columbia Journalism Review. In the third paragraph in fact. See footnote No.2.
The other argument put forward by Clark and others is that what took place was not a “massacre”, but a kind of “mini civil war”. This is what I will be looking at in detail in Part II of my essay. The question is: were the soldiers provoked into firing live ammunition into the crowd as a last resort? Who initiated the violence on the steets? If there is ample evidence to show that it was the rioting mobs that provoked the violence (and there is now sufficient evidence to show that this is what actually happened: from witnesses, both foreign and domestic, including Western journalists; declassified US intelligence reports and Chinese intelligence reports issued to the central government, as included in the Tiananmen Papers). If this was indeed the case, as much of the evidence suggests, then the situation becomes far more complex and nuanced. Who was to blame for the outbreak of violence and the bloodshed that resulted must therefore be shared among numerous parties – including the student protesters, who encouraged workers and residents to take up arms and to fight.
FOARP wrote: “if no-one died at the square and its surrounding area, then who were the people taken to the hospitals?”
The killed and wounded taken to hospitals included some students, many soldiers, but mostly militant workers and citizens – some of whom were innocent of any wrong-doing but who were caught in the cross-fire.
FOARP wrote: “It beggars belief that there could have been gunfire directed into the crowds for so long without death resulting.”
But I have never claimed otherwise! Close to 300 people did in fact die, and around seven thousand were wounded – though you need to remember that a significant number of those both killed and wounded were PLA soldiers. Most of those killed though were worker activists. Some of those killed were innocent civilians who chose to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or in some cases, were in the wrong place at the wrong time through no real fault of their own.
FOARP wrote: “What exactly happened in the square is unclear, but what happened in central Beijing is not: it was the large-scale shooting of unarmed people.”
I disagree. The other way round in my opinion: what happened in the Square is clear, and is no longer even contentious I might add. What happened on the streets is unclear, though the view that innocent “unarmed” civilians and students were gunned down on mass is no longer widely accepted either. Most scholars and even Western journalists today now accept the view that civilians were NOT unarmed, and that they did provoke much of the violence. As I said, there is even sufficient evidence from a variety of important sources to show that demonstrating workers and civilians initiated the violence through acts of their own – causing panicky troops to reluctantly open fire after first using tear gas, blanks, and the firing of warning shots using live ammunition over heads.
It’s important to try to piece together events as accurately as possible, and to portion the blame fairly among all of the parties responsible. This is the purpose of my essay, as will become clear once you have had the chance to read Part II in full. All sources will, of course, be carefully cited and footnoted so that you can check them for yourself.
Stuart wrote: “On the latter point, your essay can be interpreted as a piece that deflects responsibility for 6/4 somewhat, and will therefore (as is already clear) be all too readily embraced by those conditioned to the idea of a ‘China-bashing western media’. In that sense I feel that it may reinforce existing polarized thought rather than serve to open minds to the truth of Tiananmen.”
Stuart – this is perhaps a fair criticism, in so far as I can understand and appreciate your concern, but rather than deflecting responsibility away from the central government entirely, my purpose is to demonstrate empirically that multiple parties must necessarily SHARE the blame. This I think is the morally right position to take, in light of what the weight of empirical evidence shows. The central government was not entirely to blame.
“…my purpose is to demonstrate empirically that multiple parties must necessarily SHARE the blame. This I think is the morally right position to take”
That being your purpose – and I take you at your word – we are in agreement.
But I do feel that a greater moral imperative is to allow a free and open discussion of the events of 1989, and, in this respect at least, the blame curve is quite appropriately skewed.
Stuart wrote: “But I do feel that a greater moral imperative is to allow a free and open discussion of the events of 1989, and, in this respect at least, the blame curve is quite appropriately skewed.”
Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean exactly by this sentence. Care to elaborate.
Damn! I was just going out to grab a coffee.
I meant that, in my opinion, the need for all sides of an argument to be heard is central to demonstrating that “multiple parties must necessarily SHARE the blame”. That goal can only be achieved through open, unrestricted dialogue. The greater blame for this deficiency cannot be placed on the western media’s doorstep.
You’re confusing the issue…again. MAJ’s piece legitimately discusses the Western media’s presentation of Tiananmen, arguing that the reporting was distorted. His piece is NOT about the Chinese government restricting open dialogue about Tiananmen. You are once again failing (or refusing) to address the actual point and instead changing the subject to advance your irrelevant agenda. Whether the Chinese government allows open, unrestricted dialogue on Tiananmen has little to do with whether Westerners can reflect and introspect upon how they reported Tiananmen. Like you, I too believe the Chinese government should allow open, unrestricted dialogue on Tiananmen, but it is not a necessary prerequisite before all sides of an argument can be heard regarding the issue of distorted Western reporting.
Stuart wrote: “The greater blame for this deficiency cannot be placed on the Western media’s doorstep.”
The Western media needs to take much of the responsibility for THEIR reporting of the events in question, and for their general ongoing failure after all of these years to adequately address the myths that they were largely responsible for creating. That said, the Chinese media also presented a rather one-sided coverage, but not until the later phase of the movement. Deficiency in reporting cannot be placed entirely on the Western media’s doorstep, I agree – but much of it certainly can be.
As the composer of my own analytical essays, I can portion the blame among a variety of parties: the students, the intelligensia, the Autonomous Worker’s Federation, the Construction Worker’s Union, the central government, the foreign media, and of course the PLA – and responders can of course consider my assessments and the strength of the evidence I base them on, and determine for themselves to what extent they are prepared to agree or disagree with me.
Kai – I appreciate the thoughtful way you have deconstructed my essay. It is clear from your comments that you (unlike many others here) have actually taken the time to read carefully my essay, and that you understand exactly what it is that I am arguing, and why.
Some commenters mean well when they raise concerns about the moral implications of my discourse – I truly appreciate that – though as you have rather astutely observed, their objections and/or fears are for the most part the result of them having not read my textual analyses carefully enough. Some prefer to view the world through ideological blinkers, being the Enlightenment fundamentalists that they are.
This is why I went to the effort to write an Introductory essay for my chinadiscourse.net website, outlining my philosophical approach to “reading” China – explaining why I think the value pluralist approach is a morally superior alternative to the liberal one espoused so dogmatically at times by Enlightenment fundamentalists like FOARP.
Before anyone jumps on this:
I think the proper distinction is that deficiency in reporting must be placed on the doorstep of those who were reporting. Insofar as the Western media’s reporting was deficient, it is proper to place the blame on their doorstep (just as many of the Western media reporters have themselves volunteered).
Kai – I would place some of the responsibility not only on the individual reporters , but also on entire media companies, since they packaged the reports wired to them, editing them carefully in such a way as to create a simulated “pro-democracy” movement along with a simulated “massacre” – all presented as spectacle for mass consumption.
Such editorial decisions of course, need to be viewed in the context of the Cold War. There is a reason why the Western media and Western governments largely ignored the role of workers’ unions in organising and participating in mass demonstrations and violent rioting, calling for national strikes, etc. It was ideological. The idea that workers were protesting against the effects of capitalist reforms – that they wanted the iron rice bowl set up under Mao’s rule protected – simply wasn’t the kind of message Western powers wanted to tell. Students supposedly fighting for democracy – now that’s the kind of story they wanted to tell, as it ideologically reinforces their claim that Western liberal values and political institutions are universal in both appeal and moral authority.
Kai – your continued use of sophistry to discredit my viewpoint is, to say the least, a little bizarre.
MAJ – I assume that you’re pleased that people are reading your essay and discussing it, even if that discussion is sometimes tangential to your argument. I think it’s fair to say that it wouldn’t be such a useful exercise if we all just nodded our heads in agreement (I really DID read it, btw).
However, it is important to note that I have not denied, denounced, or debunked any of Kai’s 20 excerpts or the content of your essay per se. What I have done, and I think it’s worth repeating, is to suggest that ‘sorting fact from fiction’ with regard to only the western media’s viewpoint indirectly lends credibility to the other side of a largely polarized – although not by me – issue.
How might this work? In exactly the same way that the Chinese government’s successful propagandising of the western media’s sloppiness in reporting on the Tibetan riots last year reinforced domestic support for the CCP’s Tibetan policy. The upshot of this was that even accurate reports of human rights abuses in the region were dismissed as ‘western bias’. That’s the danger.
Ideally then, readers should be confronted with a debunking of myths that exist on both sides. To discredit widely held views on only one side effectively reinforces the beliefs of those, in this instance, who hold, for example, that a benevolent Chinese government saved its people from a bunch of troublemakers or that the whole episode was orchestrated by western powers in an attempt to destabilise China.
I’m also aware in saying this that we have, as yet, only seen half of your essay.
It is not sophistry to point out that you avoided the question, nor is it sophistry to point out that you’ve avoided it yet again.
Ooooo…, the danger of free speech. Spreading dissenting views that does not conform to Western Society. Talking about something that is Un-American or Un-western. Spreading rumors that there is such a thing called ‘western bias.’ The evils of Chinese propaganda which has brainwashed Chinese minds. The horror! Maybe the problem is that you don’t have the perspective of how the others think.
Maybe you have to come up with something to debunk MAJ’s essay or maybe he is just telling the truth.
Stuart – let’s wait until I release Part II of my essay before we discuss matters further. I do in fact plan to debunk certain actions deployed by the central government – I’m most critical of their use of the death penalty during the initial aftermath, although again, the Western media exaggerated the numbers executed, and most prison sentences were relatively light, with workers receiving much harsher sentences than the students. Those who have read my comments on earlier Fool’s Mountain threads will know this already, as I expressed such thoughts about a month ago.
An extract of secret journals of Zhao Ziyang, soon to be published, has been published by The Washington Post. The follow extract is taken from pp.33-34 (from Part 1: The Tiananmen Massacre, Chapter 4: The Crackdown):
“During the demonstrations, students raised many slogans and demands, but the problem of inflation was conspicuously missing, though inflation was a hot topic that could easily have resonated with and ignited all of society. If the students had intended on opposing the Communist Party back then, why hadn’t they utilized this sensitive topic? If intent on mobilizing the masses, wouldn’t it have been easier to raise questions like this one? In hindsight, it’s obvious that the reason the students did not raise the issue of inflation was that they knew that this issue was related to the reform program, and if pointedly raised to mobilize the masses, it could have turned out to obstruct the reform process.”
This particular extract adds additional weight to everything that I have argued so far (in Part I of my essay): that the students were not seeking to overthrow the Party; that they were not seeking a Western-style democratic political system; that they were intent on keeping the movement “pure” and free from wider social forces, as they did not want to harm the economic reform process which they hoped to benefit from.
It will be interesting to see what Zhao has to say, if he says anything at all, about the death figures. My gut feeling is that it will mirror closely the central government’s figures, as does the now declassified US intelligence documents. We shall see.
“It will be interesting to see what Zhao has to say, if he says anything at all, about the death figures.”
It will be even more interesting to read about the motives, planning, orders, and execution (appropriately enough) of the end of the demonstrations, and Zhao’s further thoughts on Beijing’s inability to discuss the issue or admit wrongdoing.
stuart, I think Zhao’s memoirs can reinforce both what MAJ is arguing and what you’re looking for. They’re not mutually exclusive. There were good and bad people in both the government and the student leadership, both of which made good and bad decisions. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging, understanding, and accepting that. Doing so also does not help or hurt one side unless playground politics is employed.
I’d like to comment on Stuart’s use of the phrase “blame curve”. It can’t be denied that the power balance in Beijing in 1989 favoured the government. I can see where Stuart comes from saying this article (or at least the summary above) doesn’t add much new information for people who are truly interested in this issue. Now, I’m afraid I’m going to use a local analogy again: in South Africa Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress undeniable committed acts that would today be construed as terrorism. Yet, crucially, the balance of power was against them, and despite all attempts by the then-SA government to portray them as AK-47 and land mine-wielding barbarians, world perception cast them sympathetically into what (I believe) they were: freedom fighters. Okay. Explanation time: having read the summary above, I, too, felt intuitively, that the line of argument advanced lends weight and support to those elements in Chinese society who would rather deflect attention from the responsibilities of the, shall-we-say, majority blame-holder: the government. I absolutely agree that we should pursue as objective a truth as we can, therefore I wouldn’t fault the writer of the article, and indeed look forward to Part II. But, again intuitively, it seems to serve as a … it’s not on MY side, is what I want to say. It doesn’t further the agenda of people agitating in favour of more transparent, more accountable government in China.
I’m not ashamed of admitting this: as true as the article might be, it weakens “our” position.
I assume Stuart also had this feeling.
On the western media, questioning their own objectivity: I submit that is in fact a western cultural phenomenon that falls into a field of endeavour that, for once (that’s exaggeration for effect) Chinese people do not quite understand about western culture. I mean, the all-consuming pervasiveness of self-examination and criticism. Of course there are aspects of the incident that could have been reported more objectively. Of course cultural understanding could have been better. Of course lots got lost in translation. But western media eventually picked up on that, and started the old navel-gazing process. It sits uneasy that this, imo, excellent habit could be misconstrued as an admission of “fabricating”, or even “slightly exaggerating” something which in essence was in fact reported (eventually and retrospectively) accurately: the killing of an untold number of civilians by their own army.
It’s great if articles like the above can further our understanding. No-one should ever shy away from this kind of re-interpretive projects.
But it doesn’t change the power balance in June 1989, when a well-armed, well-equipped government institution used overwhelming force against a disorganised, badly-armed and largely non-threatening civilian populace. It doesn’t change the intervening 20 years of denial, repression and psychological violence.
I hope you understand: I’m not objecting to the article at all. I’m trying to explain the intuitive reaction of a confirmed biased western-value-based, engagement-oriented, generally concerned individual.
You can’t advocate freedom of speech in China while simultaneously arguing that articles you subjectively perceive as “weakening” your position should not be written/propagated. A more transparent and accountable government needs to be founded on an open marketplace of ideas.
I don’t think your analogies are appropriate. The characterization of MAJ’s essay as a “re-interpretive project” is also pretty bad. I mean, what part of it is reinterpreting anything?
There’s a difference between something helping your enemy and you thinking something helps your enemy. If you’re secure in your position, why are you afraid of the truth? Why is it necessary to whitewash your own position? Doing these things only teach that it is okay to pursue an end with any means. How is this different from what the Chinese government did 20 years ago and has been doing over the past 20 years with the information about that incident?
Okay, and I hope you’ll be able to discern how I used “you and your” in my response above without always specifically referring to you, cerebus. I understand the intuitive reaction of stuart. I’d argue that he’s more paternalistic and dictorial than engagement-oriented but whatever. The bottom line to me is that him chafing under any information that suggests his side or his adopted side was not perfect or “good” makes him look remarkably similar to the Chinese government he rails against.
Oh, absolutely: for me the argument isn’t about whether the article should be written (it must), it would be about whether the article diminish the responsibility of the government.
Anything that challenges the mainstream, “common perception” position is re-interpretive to a degree. I only meant it as “re-examining” or even just “re-visiting”.
In this specific issue it doesn’t look as if “we” are secure in our position. It’s been 20 years and still my Chinese friends don’t recognise the tank man picture, or share the official government view. I.e. with regards to both the Dalai Lama and TAM, he Chinese government is winning. So — like I said — even though the article, and many others like it, might be absolutely true, it doesn’t further our cause.
In this frustrating position one adopts various approaches throughout the course of advancing one’s position. One of them is: fight fire with fire.
I’d say Stuart has a long way to go to amass the kind of sheer power and influence that would make him look like anything even vaguely resembling the Chinese government. There lies the difference.
My analogy was about world perception. If the world perceived Nelson Mandela as a terrorist they would not have supported his (justified) cause. Sure, the world technically knew the ANC blew up things, but they… whitewashed… glossed over that. (Except the US who only lifted their restriction on Mr. Mandela last year!)
During the Apartheid years I would have seriously questioned anyone’s motives who went around writing long articles detailing the terrorist activities of the ANC in, say, a British newspaper. I would not however have urged the newspaper NOT to publish it. I would have gone online and argued in the comments forum… if there’d been something like that in 1984.
Same here. I’m here arguing this position, not to retrospectively prevent the article from being published, but to highlight an aspect of the issue from my perspective, and hopefully raise awareness in people to be critical of certain aspects in the articles they read in the future.
I think we need to make a distinction between “causes” and “audiences”. It sounds like you’re referring specifically to a cause to inform the (mainland) Chinese audience of information they’ve been deprived of. I understand that and I think access and propagation of more information is generally a good cause.
Another separate cause is to inform the Western audiences whose understanding of Tiananmen is still that of the distorted “myths” initially (and persistently) propagated. This distorted understanding is an oversimplification of the students as “good” or “pro-democratic” or “western” versus an “monolithic evil” or “anti-freedom/democracy” or “communist” government.
MAJ’s essay, I believe, is addressed at Western audiences in pursuit of the second cause. I think stuart attempts to confuse this, by suggesting that pursuit of the second cause is motivated by a desire to excuse, justify, whitewash, etc. the main antagonist of the first cause, hence hurting the first cause.
I don’t think so. Now, I think it’s POSSIBLE, but I don’t see it as evident in MAJ’s essay much less necessarily present. I don’t think it is healthy (in fact, I think it is dangerous) to equate security and confidence in one cause with security and confidence in another cause. Moreover, I actually think our security with evaluating our own biases/prejudices/mistakes should make us more secure in advocating freer access and dissemination of information elsewhere. It shows that we’re not hypocrites, that we’re willing to walk the talk, with the humility to acknowledge our own potential for error and the conviction of what we believe in and can argue.
I think the difference between my position and someone like stuart’s is that I can separate the two causes and audience, understanding the fallacy of linking and confusing the two. I fully understand the ease of doing so (as I said, playground politics), but I don’t think a logical, rational person who takes the time to think through it all should make such a mistake. That mistake is usually borne out of an emotional response instead of a logical one. I understand emotional responses but respect logical ones.
LoL, I have to laugh at this because I’ve got a few hounds barking at me for fighting fire with fire over on chinaSMACK. Of course, I think of it as fighting inexcusable ignorance with non-sugar-coated insults. But I digress…
Sure, if I were talking about sheer power and influenced, I’d agree with you. However, I was talking about his aversion to any information, regardless of validity, that evidences his side as not being perfect or “good.” Insofar as he feels silencing certain information is necessary to advance his own agenda/cause, I’d say he and the Chinese government are “remarkably similar.”
Okay, not advocating that MAJ’s essay be unwritten or silenced is good, though I actually don’t think anyone was suggesting that, even stuart. My earlier objection to stuart was that he was trying to change the subject. I feel you’re doing the same, though in a much more respectable and less blatantly obvious to be offensive way. This post was about MAJ’s essay and the points discussed in them. stuart comes in and essentially says: “don’t trust MAJ, ignore all of that, and THIS is actually what all of you should be thinking about instead of what MAJ has written.” In poisoning the well or derailing discussion of MAJ’s essay and points, he’s effectively subverting a separate cause simply because he subjectively sees it as a threat to his own. However understandable that is, it is still evidence of a certain insecurity with one’s cause/position and a certain intellectual dishonesty with acknowledging, accepting, and addressing separate, independent points of discourse. We should have the maturity to acknowledge good points where they are made about whatever they’re made about, without feeling we have to somehow squash them all or monopolize the entire discussion to support our own good points.
All true. Good point about causes vs audiences.
“…but I don’t think a logical, rational person who takes the time to think through it all should make such a mistake.”
Unfortunate that such people are not the main perpetrators of popular opinion.
Apologies for attempting a subject steer. How I felt it was pertinent was that the content of MAJ’s article prompted me (wearing my “cause” hat) to go: yes, but how does that change the basic dynamic?
As far as the “cause” goes:
“We should have the maturity to acknowledge good points where they are made about whatever they’re made about, without feeling we have to somehow squash them all or monopolize the entire discussion to support our own good points.”
In opposition to the government (not you or MAJ etc.) the above doesn’t get reciprocated. In discourse with the official Chinese position one tends to get weary of “acknowledging good points” while continuously being squashed. Morally I subjectively feel one has to distinguish between the greater good and the greater evil. So, although I wouldn’t attempt to force anyone to adopt this view, I personally feel morally justified in (again in discourse with as you say the internal Chinese audience) poisoning the well, where “well” is defined as the Chinese government. And poisoning is defined as — not intellectual dishonesty — but bringing totally accurate descriptions of their behaviour into the discussion.
The article is informative, westerners with a passing interest should take note of it, and it should infuse our perceptions of and interactions with our Chinese counterparts.
I wouldn’t be afraid of admitting to insecurity around this issue (which is what I think western media is doing in their questioning of their own bias). There’s plenty of insecurity, and will be until I am actually born as a Chinese person and live through the incident myself. On both sides. Some kind of concurrent reincarnation. Until then I’ll not feel I fully understand it. It would in fact be intellectual dishonesty to claim complete security in any position. I take exception, however, to my own navel-gazing being used against me, i.e. the insecurity that I feel is an asset. Not by you, here, but by others when discussion the “cause”.
The following is a comment from Fool’s Mountain where Madge wrote his original nonsense. (Leaving some links off since this is getting stopped by your spam filter.)
@MAJ
No one is arguing that you have to speak or read Chinese to have an informed opinion about China. But in your post you make statements to the effect that Beijing students were advocating democracy only in order to please Western audiences or that the students were elitist and did not really understand democracy. That is not true. If you were able to read Chinese, you could flip through the pages of a documentary collection like 中國民運原資料精選 : 大字報, 小字報, 傳單, 民刊 and realize the great diversity of opinion among students and workers who took part. But you can’t. You don’t read Chinese. And you did not visit China in the 80s, neither have you ever cared to met any of the leaders of the student movement to talk to them.
The problem is that you are posing as a researcher with an original and informed opinion about China, but your entire account of the movement is derivative of what others have said. You cherry pick quotes from people who were there and know better than you, in order to paint a bleak picture of the student movement that suits your agenda. You post book reviews at different websites and correspondence from authorities in the China field in order to bolster your authority. But you are not credible.
This comment inspired my own response in the same thread:
———————-
Amban you’ve hit the nail on the head. I can go through many biographies of Hitler from the world’s most distinguished historians – Hans Momsen, Ian Kershaw, Michael Burleigh and the like – and quote from each of them lines that seem to praise Hitler: his love of children the way he loved to play with dogs and roll around with them, his charm with women, his quiet poise and politeness (in certain situations), etc. I can then say, rather pompously, “Based on all these quotes, we can conclude that Hitler, contrary to the common myths, was a charming, kind and lovable man.” Except, this would be total horseshit because it is cherry-picking and ignoring 99 percent of what the historians actually wrote. Any reader who actually reads Jan Wong’s entire book or watches all the interview in Gate of Heavenly Peace will know in a heartbeat that “Jones” has intentionally misled readers by conveniently ignoring all of their praise for the movement, its peaceful nature and sincere enthusiasm, while showcasing whatever he feels will help prove his point, This is a conscious attempt to falsify information, but it is totally consistent. Next he says he will debunk the myths about SARS. Only he wasn’t here during SARS (I was), and he didn’t experience what it was like when someone in the office next to yours died of the disease (I did) , and he will pluck quotes from obscure sources and claim with scholarly assuredness that this clearly proves SARS was a myth – which, of course, is simply a path toward his greater agenda, which is letting the CCP off the hook for its fuck-ups. (Though of course, as a doctor, Madge certainly is qualified to lecture all of us mere mortals about SARS.)
As I alluded to on my own site in a remark to a commenter:
But of course, none of the dialogue with Jones is real anyway. Remember, this is the fellow who posed as a female doctor and requested photos of readers’ genitalia. I may take heat for bringing up the past, but you absolutely must know the motivations behind your source – just as Jones smugly asserts that you have to take into account Zhao’s situation and history to understand he was simply trying to clear his name and his legacy. Only Jones’ smug assertion is based on nothing but his reflexive desire to elevate and praise the CCP at any cost. My assertion that Jones is a liar, a windbag, a conscious and persistent falsifier of fact and a con artist is proved by one thing and one thing only, his own words and deeds. Period. Just as a reminder of his cross-dressing days, documented in copious detail in the same thread:
Sorry to interrupt your thread for a moment, Raj, but it is quite relevant to the discussion that has ensued about Madge’s ridiculous post. The truth is best, and as Madge himself says about Zhao, it’s important to know the motives of our source. We must not read Madge in a vacuum and presume he is doing this for us. Everything Madge does is for himself, always and without exception.
I appreciate this site and am delighted that it offers writers of very diverse viewpoints such as Raj and Nimrod an opportunity to share their posts and have an intelligent dialogue. Excellent post, Raj.
——————————
I enjoy your site too, Kai. But this thread needs some reality checks now and then. And like Cerebus, I don’t think Madge should be silenced. But if he wants to have the soapbox, he’d best be prepared to deal with the detritus he leaves in his wake. Thanks.
Godwin’s Law holds :)
See also this recent post by Philip Cunningham on “the culpability of those most culpable”.
http://jinpeili.blogspot.com/2009/05/zhao-ziyang-and-tiananmen.html
Actually that isn’t a real example of Godwin’s (which is when you accuse your interlocutor of being akin to Hitler). I chose the Hitler example because, as the archetype of pure evil, it seemed the best way to drive home my simple point: by cherry-picking quotes, you can prove whatever you want, even that Hitler was adorable. :-)
Unfortunately blogspot is banned again here in Beijing. I’ll read with Cunningham post as soon as I switch to my proxy. I admire Cunningham’s chronicling of the “incident.”
Okay, read it. Money quotes, which smash Madge’s “arguments” (not that that’s hard to do):
And:
And I am not cherry-picking. Please read the entire post. Wonderful. Thanks Cerebus.
Repeat: Philip Cunningham, like me and like all rational people who watched the drama unfold live and in color and marveled at the power of the greatest example of passive resistance the world had ever seen, called the military crackdown “the one real crime.” Bravo, Philip.
Last for the night: Thanks to cerebus, I just put up a piece on the Cunningham article: http://tinyurl.com/qxh9xk.
To give a more accurate context than the first Cunningham “money quote” you use above, I have to say argue that MOST young people in China don’t even know about Tiananmen. Of those that do, I’m sure “many” blame it on the students, but I also sure many other young people in China DON’T and instead blame it on the government. I think a lot of foreigners want to believe that most Chinese young people blame the students in order to give themselves more cause to “fight” but that’s basically masturbation.
To be brutally honest, richard, you ARE still cherry-picking, because even by your own admission, you used to have deep reservations against Cunningham for his previous comments. You’re just cherry-picking his newest ones, which may not actually retract or diminish his previous comments.
Next, (and damn it is late), I still don’t see how MAJ’s essay itself blames “it” on the students or suggests there was any other “real crime.” You need to be more specific.
Richard wrote: “We must not read Madge in a vacuum and presume he is doing this for us. Everything Madge does is for himself, always and without exception.”
Ridiculous! That’s all I can say.
Give it a rest Richard. Most people come here to discuss the threads posted, not to waste their time reading silly attempts at character assassination. You’re supposed to be a professional journalist these days, working for the Global Times. Professional journalists do not engage in what amounts to silly cyber bullying and harrassment – which is what your continual spamming of that Fantabulist thread essentially amounts to. If you can’t let go of the past, then may I suggest you consider taking a really good laxative.
You also accuse me of being “a card-carrying Marxist” which you say “is the pinnacle of hypocrisy, since [I] adore a good Marxist revolution and [so should] be wildly in favor of passive resistance and demonstrations against regime’s such as America’s or other capitalist countries’.
Again, ridiculous! You really don’t know what you’re talking about. If anybody here wants to understand me better, I suggest that they read instead the Introduction to my China Discourse website (www.chinadiscourse.net), which outlines my philosophical approach. I am NOT a “card-carrying Marxist”, whatever that’s supposed to mean. I am influenced by Marx, that is true, but I am also influenced by many non-Marxists too. I consider myself to be a value-pluralist more than anything.
Richard claims that I ignore “99 percent” of what historians have to say about the Beijing spring of 1989. Rubbish! I have merely expressed the view of most of the historians I have read. Only last night I read the work of yet another historian whose assessment of the student movement mirrors what I presented in my essay – by Professor Merle Goldman, who is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading experts on the Chinese democracy movement. See her book, “Sowing the seeds of Democracy in China”.
I didn’t “cherry pick” Jan Wong’s book either – I own a copy of her book, and as far as I am concerned I have drawn on it in a way that reflects her views and impressions on particular aspects of the movement – those aspects that I was questioning in my essay. Her impressions on these particular aspects – the elite authoritarianism for example – were shared by many other journalists at the time, some of whom I also quote. Many historians who have searched through and read such primary sources have also drawn the same conclusions that I have presented – which is why I quote some of them too. as far as I am concerned, my approach to researching, synthesising and then constructing discourse of my own is perfectly valid.
Richard simply hasn’t read me carefully enough. I do NOT blame the violence completely on the students, as he seems to suggest. He is misrepresenting my views (as usual). I suggest that the students in general (especially many of their more radical leaders), the 20,000 militant members of the Beijing Autonomous Worker’s Federation, the Chinese Central Government, and the PLA, all must share responsibility for the violence that took place. I stand by this line of reasoning. I have yet to finish writing Part II of my essay, which will cover this specific issue, so I’m rather puzzled as to why Richard would jump to such conclusions as to what I think.
Too many people here have vivid imaginations, and are reading way too much into my arguments – consequently they are misrepresenting my views. Allow me to clarify something:
I represent the middle ground in my opinion: I don’t hold the view that the Central Government was entirely to blame for the bloodshed. The evidence simply doesn’t support such a conclusion in my opinion, as I will seek to demonstrate in Part II of my essay. But nor do I blame the students entirely, or any other group or section of society. In fact, it has been suggested here that I am trying to present the student movement as having been violent. I have never made such a suggestion. I don’t know where people are getting this impression from – it’s puzzling.
Most of the violence occured between the PLA and militant worker activists – most of whom belonged to the Beijing Autonomous Worker’s Federation. This is why, after the battle for Beijing, the government didn’t execute a single student. Most of those students arrested were soon after released, those that were imprisoned served sentences of between one and two years. Workers, on the other hand, received sentences of up to 16 years, and at least 17 of them were executed.
Nowhere have I ever defended the use of the death penalty either – not under any circumstances, though there have been prominent Western intellectuals in the past who have offered up justifications for the use of the death penalty. The French existential philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Bouviour for example, both defended the right of governments to use the death penalty.
I do not blame the violence entirely on the students, as Richard and FOARP assert. They are misrepresenting my views. I suggest that the students in general (especially many of their more radical leaders), the 20,000 militant members of the Beijing Autonomous Worker’s Federation, the Chinese Central Government, and the PLA, all must share responsibility for the violence that took place. I stand by this line of reasoning.
I hope this clarifies the matter for your readers. I suggest people actually take the time to read what I say, rather than simply listening to what others imagine or wish that io had said.
Just a thought I had, and I’m only going to cherry pick the bits in this blog article, not the original article by Mr. Jones.
IF:
those people protesting in and around Tiananmen Square in 1989 had hoped for
brief tolerance of “a degree of political dissent”
and had been
“dwarfed by the intervention of much broader social forces”
and
“simply equated the idea of ‘democracy’ with the need for government accountability and responsiveness”
and wanted to
secure “formal recognition from the government for their movement”
and actually meant
“accountability”
and went around saying
“Freedom, democracy”
and
“complained of official corruption and high-level nepotism, poor food and uncomfortable dormitories”
and were not
“talking about universal equality of opportunity”
but
“merely envious of those who held higher-paying jobs”
and
thought “of themselves as a kind of loyal opposition”
and some of them
“did so simply because that was what everyone else seemed to be doing”
and
bickered amongst themselves
and
“began to display the same bureaucratic and autocratic tendencies”
and had
“a min-bureaucracy with committees for sanitation, finance and ‘propaganda’”
THEN:
They really were looking for plain vanilla Western style democracy.
IF
some of them were
“actually hoping for … bloodshed”
THEN:
They really were plain vanilla freedom fighters.
My point is, democracy allows all of the above, includes it, sometimes encourages it, but certainly provides a platform where it could be debated, discussed and acted out. “Western” is a swear word, “Democracy” is a swear word, I know. But that is what Western Style Democracy IS: chaos, dissent, tolerance, inclusiveness, accountability and above all a PROCESS. Bickering and getting it wrong is VERY MUCH a part of it. And if those students couldn’t articulate it, well, for god’s sake they grew up in China in the seventies and eighties. How could they have the vocabulary for it? If you want freedom, accountability and a better dorm bed, what you really want is in fact Western Style Democracy. They don’t sound different from any other revolutionaries ever in the history of EVER. They might be partly to blame for the violence, yes, but they were doing the right thing! And besides, they were only to blame in so far as you might be to blame if I break my fist on your head by hitting you.
Technically, anything allows for the above.
Not really. When you simplify it down to that degree, what you really want is what everyone wants: freedom, accountability, and a better dorm bed. The extraneous step is then equating it to a ideological concept for a political system: democracy. Going even further is equating their actions as being borne out of motivations originating from “Western” desires/values/ideology. That’s a problem.
Exactly, see what I mean above?
Who was blaming who for what violence? I don’t think MAJ’s piece was suggesting that they, the students/protesters, weren’t doing and trying to do what was in their interest.
As for blaming vis-à-vis violence, I was reacting to this bit from MAJ:
“I suggest that the students in general (especially many of their more radical leaders), the 20,000 militant members of the Beijing Autonomous Worker’s Federation, the Chinese Central Government, and the PLA, all must share responsibility for the violence that took place. I stand by this line of reasoning.”
You say:
“The extraneous step is then equating it to a ideological concept for a political system: democracy. Going even further is equating their actions as being borne out of motivations originating from “Western” desires/values/ideology. That’s a problem.”
The problem is calling “what we all want” a “Western” desire/value/ideology. I contend here that “Western Democracy” is actually just “Western” cause we did it first, and it represents a state of being that all humans whether they bloody well like it or not really aspire to. Hehe. It’s 4am here. You know: people go to Shanghai and go “Wow, it’s so Western.” But I’ve been to Shanghai and I convinced it’s really not Western: it’s highly developed “Eastern”. The two just happen to look very much alike on the surface, probably due to millions of years of human evolution… or possibly quantum.
Same with democracy — not the institutions of government of western countries, but the thing. It’s not western. It’s Chinese government slander to call it Western. We got it here too. It’s a darn sight better than anything we’ve had before. It’s awesome, in fact, when I compare the shithole this country was twenty years ago. It’s “Southern” Democracy, if you will.
Anyway, what Gus is trying to say here, is that when people, like the students SAY they want “democracy and freedom” THAT’S what they want. It doesn’t matter whether they understand what it means, or even if WE understand what THEY mean… that’s what democracy gets you: as many different understandings as you like. I.e. the whole question of western media misinterpreting their motivations is moot. For my next trick I’d like to argue that we can safely and sans introspection go ahead and say they wanted democracy, cause whatever they wanted, democracy would have delivered it.
I had an interesting discussion about this over in the comments of this chinaSMACK post (it’s a doozy, be warned). One of the threads of discussion was trying to understand the statement: “China wants to modernize, not necessarily Westernize.”
I think the word “Western” is often used differently within different contexts. In short, “Western” can be used to refer to both superficial phenomenon (what something looks like) and the underlying values/motivations/ideology that leads to that superficial phenomenon. When I think of a society/country with a “Western democracy” I think not only of what political institutions or processes they have, but also the reasons for WHY they developed and cherish those institutions and processes. It’s basically saying two people can have the same result but pursued that result for different reasons and got there through different paths. I think “Western” implies a specific reasoning and a specific path.
I understand what you’re saying but it is still a dangerous simplification that is irrelevant to the point made in MAJ’s essay. We can say both the Chinese Tiananmen protesters and many Western audiences shared a common desire for government accountability, but we can’t say the Chinese Tiananmen protesters shared with many Western audiences the understanding that this government accountability can only be achieved through the “Western” democratic system of multi-party open elections. This is the difference. We can certainly argue that what the students wanted is “democracy” (it fits under the umbrella), but the crux here is what the Western audiences interpreted this “democracy” to mean. The Western audiences still read more into “pro-democratic” than was warranted…and this is where the problem of ethnocentrism lies.
Think of it like this. The Chinese protesters like Toyota (bear with me). Would it be accurate for Western audiences to interpret the Chinese protesters as liking the Toyota Camry? Replace “Toyota” with “government accountability” and “Toyota Camry” with “Western democratic system.”
Except that they wanted to work within the system, not topple it. You’re not egging them on to do something they didn’t want to do because you think what you want them to do will get them one part of what they want. However, by doing so, you’re intentionally ignoring another part of what they want. You still need to be clear on what they want when they say “democracy” because different connotations as used by different speakers matter. Ignoring this is basically playing word games as a substitute for making a legitimate argument. You’re arguing for a common definition of democracy but still personally using a different one.
If the protesters meant greater government accountability when they chanted the “democracy” buzzword, the right thing to do is understand what they meant and give them what they meant, not give them something else and say then argue that being what they meant. If you wanted a Chili Cheeseburger and chanted “burgers!” and I gave you a California Avocado Burger saying it’s a “burger” too, would that be right? No.
“If you wanted a Chili Cheeseburger and chanted “burgers!” and I gave you a California Avocado Burger saying it’s a “burger” too, would that be right? No.”
Right now, I’d be highly pissed. Avocado just can’t be right. As always, a lot of points taken. After beddy-byes I’ll go read the doozy. I’m beginning to see the shape, though. The shape being that in some circumstances, like TAM, the distinction does indeed seem crucial… in our own SA case, I believe very much less so. I get it though… night.
Boy, now we are really parsing. Since there were so many voices and so many demands and factions we have to stick to bottom lines, or else we can go into micro-arguing forever. Meanwhile, here is the most bottom line: the students were pro-democracy demonstrators, and that is simply a fact. Democracy was a constant theme. Maybe not quite democracy as you or I see it, but democracy nonetheless. As renowned historian, China hand and frequent CCP supporter Daniel Bell put it in a NYT op-ed a few days ago:
You can parse and argue ’til the cows come home about the type of democracy. But some themes were clear and less arguable – accountability, punishment for and protection from corruption, greater share of voice etc. While the heart of the demands had their roots in economics, they were all issues of democracy (as economics itself is), and nearly all fall under the umbrella issue behind so many revolutions and rebellions, “No taxation without representation.” The leaders were being told they could not plunder and pillage, live like kings amid the hungry, turn a blind eye to justice – all at the expense of the people they ostensibly serve. This is not to say the protests were anti-CCP or anti-communist. Democracy is supposed to be a major aspect of China’s communist rule. It was not about tearing down the Chinese model and instituting the American model, though if there was ever confusion about that it came from the over-zealous students who used American “democracy imagery” and slogans to give reporters this impression. But again, as Bell says, this was a pro-democracy movement, and to try to deny that is to deny history.
Kai, about cherry-picking Cunningham, as you accused in a comment above: Never. You show me an example where I plucked out a quote of his to mislead the readers to create a false impression. That would be cherry-picking. In fact, I said multiple times how we often disagree and I feel he treats the US unfairly. Go look at my post about him. That is a really bad thing for you to say, Kai, unworthy of you, and I hope you will retract it. Finally, I am really disappointed in the way you’ve handled the commenters here, snapping down at those who disagree with Dr. Meyers (since no one knows for sure who he is) and exalting what any serious journalist would reject as sheer lunacy.
Kai, I can see you cannot be convinced so I’ll let it go with a final recap.The harebrained screed we’re discussing uses as its foundation multiple excerpted opinions of the students and events. Several of those quoted in the source documents and interviews cited said very praiseworthy things of the students and bad things about the crackdown. Dr. Meyers proceeded to pluck out the quotes that aligned with his foregone conclusion, ignoring their larger points and bottom-line feelings about these issues and, needless to say, carefully keeping out all words that might hint at a different conclusion than the one he wants to draw.. In other words – and here is where the Hitler example is totally legitimate – it’s like going through Churchill’s writing on WWII and using his extremely sparse praise of Hitler to arrive at the conclusion that Churchill admired Hitler. “See, Churchill didsaid X, Y and Z about Hitler. Thus it is safe to say…” By lining up quote after quote of negative opinions that in reality were expressed within a much larger framework originally, and putting them in a damning list as Dr. Meyers has, the reader is clearly manipulated with a skewed perspective of incomplete partial opinions: the students were ignorant, out of control, they just joined because their friends did, they were in favor of massive violence and blood in the square, and more. You can hem and haw about how that’s not what the noble Dr. Meyers is really trying to do, but that’s what she does. Any serious journalist would blast it apart, and Kai, that’s one area where I think I can claim actual expertise and a track record. It’s the kind of thing you expect Karl Rove to write about “liberal democrats.” It is the quintessential Reductio ad absurdum and someone as brilliant as you should see that. It’s built on sand, a grab-bag of out of context, misleading quotes. (If you want to see other examples of how Dr. Meyers does this as a fulltime profession, please email me.) And let me say Kai, I really respect you and know a lot of your friends and I always say great things about you. But I am bewildered by both your reaction to the nonsense Meyers wrote and the comments FOARP and others posted. I believe with all my heart that had an equivalent argument been made about something you took strong opposition to, and the argument was made by slyly using quotes said by people who you know stand for much more than the quotes tell, making the quotes misleading to prove a point you know is highly questionable if not patently false – in that case, you would have blasted the Dr. Anne Meyers “methodology” to pieces. To repeat, the key crime is consciously cherry-picking quotes that line up with your point of view even if, right next to those quotes in the source material, is proof that your slender quote is misrepresentative and actually gives a different or even opposite impression of what that person believes and stands for. That’s how Anne works, and you took the bait and swam with it.
Your passionate defense of this slipshod “analysis” has come as a shock to the China blogosphere. I hope one day when the passion cools you can step back and look at it objectively. Thanks for the space.
Richard:
You know better than to claim and wave the banner of the “China blogosphere” at me. You really do. I take offense to you dismissing my arguments concerning this issue as some misplaced “passion” and I don’t see what makes my perspective any less objective than your’s. If anything, it feels like your simmering resentment towards MAJ has clouded your ability to fairly evaluate the arguments presented in MAJ’s essay (and the source material behind them) to the point where you categorically dismiss it as “slipshod ‘analysis’”.
Richard, you haven’t really engaged in debating the arguments presented. You’ve spent more time explaining why MAJ shouldn’t be trusted. While I understand and accept the relevance of the author’s general credibility, the best argument you’ve made is suggesting that MAJ cherry-picked quotes that misrepresent the overall position of the sources quoted. As I’ve already said, that still doesn’t misrepresent the conclusion argued for in MAJ’s essay. You still haven’t proven how MAJ’s essay excuses, justifies, or whitewashes the government’s culpability for whatever they are indeed culpable for.
I can just as easily dismiss everything you’re saying as a “passionate” attack on the writer of this essay that comes as a shock to the principles of objective discourse. Don’t just claim you are looking at things objectively or insinuate that others are not without making a proper argument for it. I’m probably as shocked about this comment of your’s as you are over what you think my position is.
I simply cannot believe you are unable to see the point of distinction being made not just in MAJ’s essay but in tons of research and work done about Tiananmen: What was the “democracy” the protesters/demonstrators seeking?
The possibility that what they meant versus what we interpret it to mean is CRITICAL to OBJECTIVELY understanding the significance of what happened and what was being FOUGHT for 20 years ago. I can’t believe you’re trying to gloss over this. If it isn’t democracy as you see it or as I see it, then what kind of democracy was it then, Richard? If you don’t know what they were fighting for and I don’t know what they’re fighting for, then what the hell are we arguing about, Richard? If you don’t even think it important to know what exactly they were fighting for, how are you possible giving the incident the respect it deserves?
What “democracy” meant to those students MATTERS. One of the major themes of MAJ’s essay was the problem INHERENT in reading different values and ideology into a buzzword that did not exist in and was not intended by those uttering it. I seriously CANNOT BELIEVE you are glossing over this.
Where did I ever argue that what the demonstrators were fighting for could be counted under the umbrella of “democracy?” NOWHERE. My point, as was MAJ’s, was to the degree western audiences may have misinterpreted the actual extent and nature of the “democracy” the demonstrators were petitioning for. The whole reason why this is important is precisely to clear up popular misconceptions and misrepresentations about the movement as being anti-communist, anti-CCP, pro-multi-party-open-elections, pro-regime change, etc. The whole reason why this is important is to DO THE TIANANMEN SQUARE INCIDENT JUSTICE.
You’re misrepresenting what I said. I said you’re just as guilty of cherry-picking quotes to support your thesis as MAJ is. I did not say you cherry-picked quotes to mislead readers to create a false impression. Upon reviewing the post of your’s, I think I may have previously misunderstood the following lines:
I misinterpreted them as you having previously viciously disagreed with Cunningham’s comments on Tiananmen, but agreeing with his latest comments, and thus cherry-picking his latest comments that were favorable to your position and using them. Upon review, I think you were previously disagreeing with him on an issue separate to Tiananmen. Am I correct? If so, I apologize for the confusion resulting from my misunderstanding and my subsequent accusation.
That said, I do hope you see the difference in what I thought I was accusing you of and what you represented me as accusing you of. I’ve repeated this many times now and I’m frustrated with why you cannot acknowledge it. MAJ wrote an argumentative essay. This essay did not set out to represent (or misrepresent) the sources’ overall positions on Tiananmen, it set out to use admissions, statements, or testimony from these sources to represent how the Western reporting on Tiananamen was distorted. You have previous both publicly and privately agreed to such, so why is it that you find it so difficult to acknowledge what you agree with just because it came from MAJ’s pen? Isn’t that a bit petty? Give credit where it is due. If you have a disagreement, make sure you’re actually disagreeing with something that’s actually present in MAJ’s essay. Otherwise, you’re attacking a straw-man.
I admit I’m confused here. However, as I said above, I have reviewed the post already and I have already apologized if I misunderstood you. Now, I’m wondering if I have misunderstood you. What exactly did you disagree with Cunningham on before? If it was about things he said about Tiananmen that you didn’t like, then maybe I didn’t misunderstand you earlier. If it was about separate issues, then I fully retract and apologize.
Please explain how I’m snapping down unfairly, incorrectly, or inappropriately at those who disagree with MAJ. Please don’t just make such a strong accusation without explanation and substantiation. I generally respect any reasoned argument with reasoned counter-arguments, and I certainly have extended the same to you for me to annoyed that you’re not returning the favor.
I’m beginning to seriously suspect that you’re rampaging against MAJ’s essay because of a preconception you have about his motives than what is actually present in his essay. You’re arguing against an agenda that exists in your mind. Now, I’ve granted that such an agenda may indeed be behind MAJ’s piece (I don’t know) BUT I do NOT see how it is evident in the piece itself.
In your rampage, you’ve now saw fit to insult me with the weight of the “China blogosphere” and “serious journalism” you have somehow gained the qualification to represent. You’re demanding that I interpret and reject MAJ’s piece contrary to the information I personally can corroborate and feel pertinent and accept your view when I don’t see how your view accurately responds to or criticizes what I read in MAJ’s piece. As I said above, you’ve even agreed with the points presented in MAJ’s piece so I’m doubly baffled as to why you’re attacking me.
Are you even able to articulate what my position is? Are you able to articulate what I’m defending? Are you aware that I’m defending the points made in the essay and not defending against the personal criticisms you have against MAJ’s character/history/person? I can’t believe this.
That’s a problem RIGHT THERE. “Convinced” of WHAT, Richard? What is it that you think I’m refusing to be convinced of? Please, articulate it for me because I honestly thought we were largely on the same page with regards to Tiananmen, but agreed to me not getting personally involved in whatever beef you have with MAJ about other things. Please, tell me, what am I not being convinced of?
How has ANYTHING I’ve said made me sound like I think it is okay to misrepresent the essence (within context) of the testimony quoted? I HAVE NEVER SAID SO. I AGREE that doing such is WRONG. However, despite my welcoming you to offer those “larger points and bottom-line feelings about these issues” or the “praiseworthy things of the students and bad things about the crack down”, you haven’t offered any! I’ve also asked you if MAJ’s use of those source’s testimony changed the inherent meaning of what was quoted or if they can legitimately co-exist with other things they have said.
I’m not precluding the idea that the sources cited said at other times good things about the students and bad things about the crackdown. I don’t think MAJ’s piece suggests that they didn’t, or that everything they said was bad things about the students and good things about the crackdown. I do not understand why you insist on framing it as one or the other. I fully believe any of those journalists are capable of saying the students did bad things and the government did bad things and vice versa, that they both did good things. What part of MAJ’s essay suggests that he’s arguing that all these quoted sources all hated the students and all agreed with the crackdown?
I don’t think that’s present in the essay, Richard. If it is, please do your argument against MAJ and now me justice by highlighting them for me.
Uh, NO, Richard, that is what YOU think he is trying to do. I’ve said to you specifically that you may very well have VERY GOOD REASONS for thinking that, but I do NOT have to think the same way YOU do. I do NOT have to read such a malevolent agenda into what I consider to be a typical argumentative essay written by university students the world over or by scholars published in academic journals or by serious writers in newspapers/magazines/books, etc. The nature of an argumentative essay is to draw upon evidence to support your point! You’re an EDITOR, Richard, how do you NOT know this?
You’re trying to dictate to me how I should read MAJ’s essay and the information presented within. Just because I do not venomously reject it lock, stock, and barrel DOES NOT MEAN and SHOULD NOT SUGGEST that I’m now somehow putting all the blame on the demonstrators and absolving the government of their crimes. I have NEVER once suggested or supported any attribution of all the blame onto the students or demonstrators. I have NEVER once suggested or supported any whitewashing or exoneration of the government’s crimes. Not agreeing with your characterization of MAJ’s essay does NOT make me an apologist for what the Chinese central government chose to do 20 years ago.
As I said above, I’m seriously not quite sure of it now, especially after the moralizing you’ve brought to bear against me. I never thought of MAJ’s essay as being “journalism.” I always saw it as an argumentative essay, an opinion piece, an editorial. I never saw it as some Wikipedia entry that professes to exhaustively present all multi-faceted sides of a historical event. YOU have tried to pigeon-hole it as such, but in doing so, you’re guilty of a straw-man fallacy. When was the last time you saw journalists extensive footnoting their articles or columns, Richard? As I said above, you’re an EDITOR, man, you should KNOW what an argumentative essay is!
Now, there’s DEFINITELY a possibility that MAJ can’t even argue this much for his piece because you may entirely be right about all of this being a big trick, but until you can persuasively explain to me how I, Kai, should have concluded all this about MAJ’s essay beyond just CLAIMING that “serious journalists” would have blasted it apart, I do not think you are remotely justified in all the attacks and insults you’re throwing my way. I think you’ve failed to understand my position, are misrepresenting it, and insulting my intelligence.
Sure, I can buy that analogy. I can also buy that you’ve spent more time dismissing what Karl Rove wrote by attacking Karl Rove himself. I can also buy that what Karl Rove wrote can apply to some liberal democrats while not applying to others. I can buy what Karl Rove wrote as a legitimate perspective about a particular subject: liberal democrats. I can buy that Karl Rove can advance a good argument and provide good evidence that can coexist in this world with an opposing argument that also provides good evidence.
I don’t see that, Richard. If anything, I think you interpreting MAJ’s essay as leading to placing all the blame on the students and excusing the government to be reductio ad absurdum. Someone as brilliant as you should see that, as well as the straw men you’re piling on me. I’m not amused at all.
Why is that I keep asking you to show me yet you only keep repeating this accusation? Please, Richard, MAJ provided all his sources. Surely you can pick any of the quotes he used and show me how it is out of context and misleading. Both Roland Soong and I were able to take the Western media’s reporting of Jackie Chan’s “Chinese need to be controlled” comment and actually show and argue how it was not contextualized. We didn’t just sit here all day accusing it of being out of context over and over again ad nauseum.
I DON’T CARE if MAJ does this as a full-time profession. He can be a nut-swinging pederast for all I care, but insofar as you want me to agree with your argument against this essay, I only care about your proving that he DID THIS with THIS essay.
Sigh. What is the point MAJ’s essay is trying to prove? Is that point in the essay or is that the point you THINK he is trying to prove? Is the existence of that point actually something anyone would see, or only those who interpret and equate any discussion of the student’s flaws to automatically be arguing for the government?
And for the record, I’d probably use the same methodology to disprove the essay I disagree with. That methodology being to use supporting quotes from verifiable sources, NOT misrepresentation. Remember, you haven’t yet shown how the quotes MAJ used are misrepresentations of what the statements mean, only that they might misrepresent that person’s overall position regarding Tiananmen. For example, I fully believe those sources can note the students being elitist but still overall support their action petitioning the government.
I get this accusation, Richard, I really do. I just haven’t seen you prove it. Please take some of the quotes used in MAJ’s essay, cite the material right next to those quotes, and explain to me how that material right next to that quote materially changes the statement being made in the quote MAJ used.
I’m not sure you can do that. Your fundamental objection to MAJ’s essay is that taken together, it says bad things about the students and this makes you unhappy because you think good things should be said about the students. How is this different from a Chinese hyper-nationalist fenqing who reads a piece that says bad things about China and feels unhappy because he thinks good things should be said about China?
You’re not objecting upon any principle of objectivity. You’re objecting upon your own subjectivity and insecurity. You’re so afraid that the people reading MAJ’s essay are going to form the conclusion (that is absent from his essay) that the government is not culpable for what they are culpable for in Tiananmen that you’re attacking it completely as misrepresentative and poisoning the well…just like the Chinese fenqing who fears that the people reading a critical report or essay on China will forget that the Chinese actually have done a lot of good things and are generally decent people overall.
I think it is unhealthy and unfair for you to try categorizing everyone in this discussion as either on MAJ’s side or your side (apparently the side of the “China blogosphere” and “serious journalists”). It sucks that you’ve accused MAJ of having a certain agenda and misrepresenting my arguments independent of that agenda to be supportive of that agenda you’ve conceived for him. He may have that agenda but my arguments are independent of supporting that agenda. That you’re confusing the two, repeatedly, is extremely unfair to me and now definitely in insulting me territory.
Not cool. At all.
Kai, I think you’re way off base, but don’t want to prolong this. I thought I gave plenty of reasons to call it a “pro-democracy” movement and quoted Dr. Bell and explained at some length my own logic. Sorry if that’s not enough for you or if you fail to understand. You can keep drilling down and dissecting, but at the end of the day, calling it a pro-democracy movement” is fair, accurate and universally accepted, if not here.
I already took quotes but you shot them down, starting with the one with the T-shirts, remember? And I already said it was slander of Dr. Meyers to take one line from Jan Wong’s book and use it as representative of her assessment of the students. Same with literally all the other quotes he offers from eyewitnesses talking about the students. Each of them said much more than those quotes imply – the quotes are cherry-picxked and not representative. Every one of those quotes, including Chai Ling’s stupid quote – again, I already cited – are non-representative and cherry-picked. How much more do you want?
I categorize no one as for or against Anne Meyers, or MAj or Mark Anthony James or whatever the latest nom de plume is. I do think you’ve shown bias because her opinions reflect your own. Now, that is not such an uncommon thing, but look at your emotionality on this. I am just surprised. And the way you slammed the other commenters and even deleted them. It wasn’t what I expected from you. And sincere apologies about the reference to “the Chinese blogosphere,” which was not well thought-out. I should have referred to “my many friends in the Chinese blogosphere” ; obviously there are some I don’t know and who might not have heard.
But Kai, I can see we aren’t going to get anywhere. I’m not sure why exactly, but at least now I understand a little better. Take care. Peace.
Richard, you’re not reading. That’s not good. The biggest insult is you accusing me of something and not bothering to entertain the idea that your accusation is misdirected. You again say I’m off base, but then excuse yourself from explaining your accusations against me by saying you “don’t want to prolong this.” What this says to me is “I’m just here to misrepresent and attack you but not explain why.”
Your reasons and quotation of Dr. Bell for calling it “pro-democracy” is NOT AT ODDS with anything I’ve said, yet you keep framing it so. You’ve created an argument, sat me down on one side, and are now standing over me across the table shaking your finger at me. I’m fine with calling Tiananmen a “pro-democracy” movement but I’m not fine with how some people interpret that what that “democracy” meant. Just what is wrong with this position of mine? Just how do your “plenty of reasons” or “Dr. Bell” quote or any of your logic contradict this position of mine?
So if I shot them down, then doesn’t it mean you failed to prove your argument?
Saying it is slander is different from arguing much less proving it is slander. I also didn’t see you proving how MAJ used it as “representative of her assessment of the students.” He used it to support an argument, that the students weren’t perfect. That argument was not “Jan Wong’s assessment of the students was all negative.” If it were the latter, you’d have a case. But since it is not, you don’t.
You still don’t understand why your quotes fail to support your argument. I can make 99 comments praising the students and 1 comment criticizing them. The 99 comments do NOT necessarily invalidate or contradict the veracity or poignancy of my 1 critical comment. If someone is writing an argumentative essay about the criticisms of the students, the writer would naturally find my 1 comment to be supportive and legit to use. If someone were writing an argumentative essay about what Kai Pan generally felt about the students, then using only that 1 comment would be wrong because it is not representative of my overall position, and my overall position in this case would be the actual subject of the essay.
The only way your objection and criticism is valid is if MAJ’s essay set out to represent the overall position of the sources. For example, if MAJ’s essay was “Jan Wong’s book is critical of the students.” and he used one single quote from it, you’d have a damn good objection and criticism. However, MAJ’s essay is NOT about that, is it?
What I want is you to stop misrepresenting other people’s positions or work. What I want is you to please know what the hell you’re arguing against before you start arguing. What I want is for you to calm down from your “passionate” but otherwise misdirected attacks and actually read. What I want is you to restrain yourself from projecting your own preconceived notions other people’s agendas are and evaluate the work, statements, and arguments themselves.
Dude, you’re kidding me, right? How are you any less biased because MAJ’s essay (or your interpretation and representation of MAJ’s essay) fails to reflect your own? This is the kind of accusation that just shouldn’t be made because IT APPLIES TO YOU AS WELL. Despite me asking you, you haven’t yet articulated what my opinion is, have you, Richard? I daresay if you stopped and tried to do so, you’d realize we shouldn’t even be arguing.
Are you really going to sit there and accuse me of being emotional? You who wrote:
Let us not forget that you’re the who peppered your comment above insulting my intelligence (“someone as brilliant as you should see that”) instead of spending the time or energy to consider that I might have a legitimate reason for why I seem to disagree with you. No, instead you try to ostracize me as being against the “China blogosphere” or “serious journalists.” Great job, Richard. Real calm and collected you are.
You said I snapped at commenters like FOARP. Where? Tell me how I snapped at FOARP. Do you really need me to go on your blog to find evidence of you slamming and deleting commenters? Richard, where do you get the gall to criticize me for things you yourself are guilty of? You have no idea who I deleted and why I deleted them, yet you’re moralizing to me? You? Someone who himself deletes commenters who veer beyond argumentation into instigation? You have absolutely zero qualifications to remotely criticize me for slamming or deleting commenters. You doing so is DEFINITELY not what I expected from YOU.
Yes, we’re defintiely not going to get anywhere with you not bothering to read and persisting in attacking me as a person based upon a mistaken understanding of my position and arguments. If you genuinely and sincerely wanted to figure out why we disagree, you would’ve taken up my request that you actually articulate what you think my position is so we can discuss whether it is accurate or not, BEFORE your use that as a premise upon which you attack me. When a discussion gets out of control, it behooves us to return to establishing a common starting point. I don’t understand why you refuse to do so. Please, tell me what you think my position is for you to have suddenly gone off (at times hypocritically) on a rant against me like the ones above.
Kai – let me just say something about this charge of Richard’s that I’ve “cherry pick” my evidence. To claim that I cherry pick my evidence, is simply another way of accusing me of being biased and selective in my use of evidence – that I choose to ignore anything that doesn’t lend support to my arguments. It implies then, that the evidence I choose (or “cherry pick”) is not where the weight of evidence falls – hence the need to cherry pick in the first place.
If you read through Part I of my essay carefully, as I think you have, you will see that I have drawn on a large variety of evidence: the memoirs of at least four Western journalists who covered the events in question; a number of newspaper reports written at the time of the events by Western journalists; a Harvard University-based research study paper on US media coverage which itself drew on the published reports of many journalists who covered the events, as well as interviews with journalists conducted since the events in question took place; academic journals and books written by a good number of professional historians, political scientists and sociologists; a book written by two researchers for a human rights group; an editorial by a former Australian diplomat; and the Hunger Striker’s Manifesto, written by close supporters of the student movement, such as the Tiawanese singer Han Dejian. All of them express the view, quite unambiguously, very explicitly in fact, that the majority of students involved in the movement were not seeking to overthrow the government or to challenge the one-party system – that they were not seeking a Western-style liberal democracy. All expressed the view too, to varying degrees, that the student movement in general suffered from an elite authoritarianism. Zhao Ziyang, in both his May 4 speech (included in the Tiananmen Papers) and in his newly published memoirs, also expressed these exact same views.
I did not reach any of my assessments out of thin air. I formed my opinions after making extensive research, after reading through all of the sources I cited. My assessments reflect where the weight of evidence lies. Sure, some individual students did have an understanding and appreciation of Western liberal democracy, but most did not. Not according to the weight of evidence.
I have yet to come across a single scholarly work in fact, that paints a different picture of the student movement.
If I came up with the conclusion instead, that the movement was indeed a “pro-democracy” one, in the sense that students were calling for the introduction of a multi-party political system, then I really would be guilty of “cherry picking”, since this is not in fact what the overwhelming weight of evidence, both primary and seconday, indicates.
History was actually the discipline I majored in at university, right through to post-graduate level. The style that I used to write my essay mirrors the style I used as a university student. None of the professors and doctors who assessed my research essays ever accussed me of plagiarism or of “cherry picking” and more often than not they awarded me with High Distinctions. My thesis, which examined the differential treatment of men and women by the 18th century British criminal law courts, was likewise awarded a First Class. To be awarded even a pass, the thesis must be original and not based merely on the “cherry-picking” of evidence. It was assessed by an Oxford scholar, Dr. David Lemmings, and is available in the University of Newcastle Auchmuty Library – and again, I constructed it in exactly the same way that I have constructed my China essays – I used my research skills to locate a variety of both primary and secondary sources, I then read them and synthesise the various arguments to construct assessments of my own, quoting from the various sources read to support my arguments.
A few months ago, Professor Daniel A. Bell, a China specialist who currently teaches at Tsinghua University, left a comment on my China Discourse website in response to my essay on human rights. He was alerted to my site by Kate Merkel-Hess, another China specialist who edits the China Beat blog. This is what he wrote:
“Dear Mr. Jones,
Thanks for your interesting and well-written essays. I generally agree with your perspective and there is further support for your point that East Asians generally value communal solidarity more than Westerners from political value surveys carried out by Asian Barometer.
I’m impressed by the thoroughness of your research on China and human rights. But if you want to read more on the philosophy and the history of human rights thinking in China, I’d recommend Stephen Angle’s book on the topic published a few years ago (by Cambridge University Press, forget title) and on China’s recent human rights development I’d recommend articles by WANG Shaoguang published in Modern China and Boundary (all in 2008).
Good luck with your research! Now I must return to my student papers.
Best regards,
Daniel A. Bell
Philosophy Department, Humanity School, Tsinghua University, Beijing.”
Rather than dismissing my essays as lacking in originality or as being merely a string of cherry picked quotes, he instead described them as being “interestng”, “well-written” and “thoroughly researched”. Anyone suspecting me of being Professor Bell can easily track down his email address and ask him for themselves whether or not he wrote the above comment – in case anyone here wants to accuse me of playing with personas.
Likewise, Professor Jeffrey Wasserstrom, another China specialist and professional historian, and co-editor of the China Beat blog, occasionally corresponds with me via email and last December he sent me a copy of his new book on Shanghai for me to review. My review was published by the George Mason University’s History News Network site. Again, I employed my usual writing style, integrating quotations not only from his book, but also from other works like Marshall Berman’s “All That Is Solid Melts Into Air”. The editors had no problems with my style. They accepted my submission, praising my review in their email to me as being “very nicely crafted.” Jeff Wasserstom said the same thing in an email he sent me, dated 8/12/08:
“Wow, that’s not just a very flattering review but a very smart one as well, much more of an engagement with the book’s themes. It is also just a nice piece of writing.”
I have the email in my inbox, should anyone doubt my honesty! I’ll most probably me meeting up with Professor Wasserstrom here in Sydney this coming July, as I’ll be attending a conference on China at the University of Sydney that he will be addressing.
As far as I am concerned, my essay on the events in Beijing of 1989 meet acceptable academic standards. If anyone here wants to accuse me of cherry picking, then they need to prove it by showing that the weight of empirical evidence falls elsewhere – that the body of evidence that I have drawn upon isn’t representative of what most primary sources indicate, or of what most scholarly secondary sources argue or present.
So Richard, here is my challenge to you. Where is your evidence to show that the majority of both primary and secondary sources contradict the assessments that I have presented in Part I of my essay? Unless you can demonstrate that the overwhelming weight of evidence falls elsewhere, then you can hardly accuse me of cherry picking, can you?
I eagerly await for all of your detailed references!
Secondly Richard, as Kai has very rightly pointed out, my essay did not set out to represent the overall position on the student movement of each of the sources I referred to, just as the Harvard University-based research study did not set out to represent the overall views of each of the journalists €they cited. And by the way Richard, the study I refer to ALSO quoted Jan Wong’s criticisms of the student movement, and in much the same way that I did – though the particular quote from Wong that they used had the purpose of demonstrating how both the students and the majority of US journalists covering the event were often dishonest and biased. Wong is also critical, not only of the students, but also of other journalists. She criticises John Pomfret for example, for having taken Wu’er Kaixi to dinner during the hunger strike, while reporting him as actually being a great hunger strike leader, ready for self-sacrifice. The Harvard-based study agreed, also criticising US journalists, and Pomfret in particular.
Jan Wong of course, offers numerous criticisms of the student movement in her book, ‘Red China Blues’. Perhaps, Richard, you haven’t read it carefully enough. For example, she is particularly critical of Wu’er Kaixi’s behaviour during the May 19 dialogue with Li Peng, even saying that she “felt sorry for Li Peng”. Wu’er, she implies, faked his collapse at the end of the meeting. Wong is even more critical of the way the students arrested, interrogated and handed over to police the Hunan worker who threw ink at the portrait of Chairman Mao. That worker received one of the longest prison sentences of all the activists ever arrested for involvement in the 1989 demonstrations – 16 years. She criticises the students for their xenophobia, and for their unhealthy nationalism. And yes Richard, like so many others, she also recognised the student movement’s elite authoritarianism – she explicitly complained about it – and she also realised that the students were not calling for a Western-style democracy.
I completely reject your ridiculous claim that I have misrepresented Wong’s views. You’re talking absolute rubbish – as usual.
As for your continual personal attacks and attempts at smear – making out that I continue to write under multiple personas such as Dr Myers – you are just being plain nasty. I haven’t used multiple personas for a good four to five years! Show me where if you think otherwise? Even if you can manage to dig up the odd one or two since The Fantabulist thread days, I bet you can’t find any such examples from the last three years plus!
Grow up Richard. Stop trying to keep the distant past alive as a way to discredit me and the views I am expressing here, now, in the present. Most people are not convinced or are even interested in any of what you are saying about me. Each time you try to smear me, you simply cause yourself more damage than you manage to inflict on me. And many people are also fed up with the way you are continually compromising the integrity of their discussions with your nasty spam.
Finally – Part II is now two-thirds of the way written. I shall be sure to publish it before June 4.
Kai wrote, addressed to Richard: “Yes, we’re defintiely not going to get anywhere with you not bothering to read and persisting in attacking me as a person based upon a mistaken understanding of my position and arguments. If you genuinely and sincerely wanted to figure out why we disagree, you would’ve taken up my request that you actually articulate what you think my position is so we can discuss whether it is accurate or not, BEFORE your use that as a premise upon which you attack me.”
Yes, well I can say EXACTLY the same thing to Richard. He knows nothing of what I think. He hasn’t, quite clearly, bothered to read the Introduction to my China Discourse website so that he can gain a deeper, more accurate understanding of where I am coming from, philosophically. Instead, he assumes I am a “Marxist” supporter of the CCP with a sinister agenda. I’m not ideologically driven at all, nor do I have an “evil” agenda. I’m a value-pluralist for goodness sake!
Of course, Richard isn’t interested in understanding me, or in engaging with me seriously or respectfully. He has an axe to grind, and visits this site with the sole purpose of trying to discrediting me in the most nasty, childish way that he can – by name-calling! I’m a “psychopath”, I’m “dangerous”, I’m the “cyber equivalent of an axe murderer”, etc.
Ridiculous, and totally mystifying!
To be fair, I can understand Richard’s beef with you MAJ. The crime isn’t in him having reservations about you based upon his past experiences with you, the crime is in him conflating an outsider’s opinions about your essay with that outsider supporting/agreeing with what he believes to be your agenda.
As I’ve stated multiple times already, both publicly and privately, I don’t want to get involved in whatever historical feud you two have. Despite the information given, the mere fact that I wasn’t party to witnessing it unfold doesn’t give me enough perspective for me to confidently take sides. More importantly, I don’t think it is important to me personally. All I wanted to do was discuss the points addressed in your essay on their own merits. They could’ve been written by Snoopy and Woodstock for all I care. Richard thinks your essay represents your greater agenda to whitewash, defend, or excuse the government for what it did 20 years ago. I personally don’t see evidence of such an agenda within the essay itself, and I’m limiting my opinion to the essay itself. He may have cause to conclude that you have such an agenda from other things, but for him to attack me for not seeing what he sees is unfair. It is unfair for him to reframe the setting of discourse and misrepresent my fundamental positions.
I also didn’t take lightly a number of other accusations he made that are actually irrelevant to the main point of discussion, but he somehow saw fit to poison the well with. Furthermore, I don’t think he can accuse me of being emotional or passionate given the strength of his own comments, so I find it perplexing that he does. I’m really taken aback by this about-face since I usually find myself generally agreeing with him. It is clear he feels likewise towards me, but I just don’t see why he does and his arguments for why seem as off base to me as he claims my arguments to be off base to him. While I think a careful examination of the discussion would clear things up, he doesn’t seem inclined to do so. I’m forced to accept he prefers to continue misunderstanding, misrepresenting, and maligning me.
Now, MAJ, given that we’ve all voiced our personal grievances, I would prefer and again kindly ask that everyone stick to rationally discussing the actual issues, points, and arguments in your essay…instead of making half-baked attacks or arguments about peripheral issues irrelevant to developing a more mature understanding of Tiananmen 1989.
Kai wrote: “Now, MAJ, given that we’ve all voiced our personal grievances, I would prefer and again kindly ask that everyone stick to rationally discussing the actual issues, points, and arguments in your essay…instead of making half-baked attacks or arguments about peripheral issues irrelevant to developing a more mature understanding of Tiananmen 1989.”
Kai, I agree entirely. This in fact, is all I ever wanted too. But I think you can understand and empathise, that each time Richard launches a personal attack, I feel compelled to defend myself – since they are being aired publicly.
I disagree with you too, when you say that Richard’s beef with me is reasonable. Why? Because I have apologised to him, both privately and publicly, countless times – all for a series of events that took place four to five years ago. He is not only unwilling to forgive, but he also, after all of these years, sees fit to follow me around cyberspace keeping that past alive, as if it all happened only yesterday. That is not reasonable, as far as I am concerned. His attacks here are totally unprovoked. Why he feels compelled to continue swinging his old rusty battle axe truly mystifies me!
I on the other hand, have no axe to swing. Richard knows this – I have held out to him many olive branches over the years. He simply refuses to accept the peace, preferring instead, evidently, to unnecessarily strike.
I don’t mind engaging with Richard on China-related issues. We actually do have some common ground. I only wish that he would do so respectfully, with courtesy. Instead of accusing me of wanting to offer “excuses” for the Chinese central government, he ought to actually read what I actually say. I occupy the middle ground. I argue that numerous parties ought to share the responsibility for the bloodshed the movement ended in. This, in my opinion, is the morally superior position to take. He’s welcome to disagree, and I’m happy for him to question my use of sources.
But rather than saying something along the lines of, ‘be careful of MAJ, he’s a cross dresser, a psychopath and the cyber equivalent of an axe murderer, so don’t listen to or even bother reading anything he says as he can’t be trusted and has evil intentions – just like what he did five years ago on my site, go and have a look for yourself if you don’t believe me,’ a more mature and productive appraoch would be to instead say something like:
“MAJ, while I appreciate the fact that you have accumulated an impressive amount of evidence to support your claim that the student movement suffered from an elite authoritarianism, and that it was not seeking a Western-style democracy, I am concerned that you may have misrepresented the overall views of some of those you cite. My understanding of Jan Wong’s view, for example, having read her book, Red China Blues, is that she was generally supportive of the movement. I am suspicious then, that you may have been too selective with your use of evidence, which I think would undermine your claims.”
My response would be polite in return, and I would point out to him that in my opinion my use of evidence is in fact perfectly valid, and that I hadn’t misrepresented Wong’s views because:
(a) I was not evaluating Wong’s overall assessment of the movement in the first place, nor did I pretend to;
(b) I was instead arguing that the student movement suffered from an elite authoritarianism, and so my use of Wong as evidence to help support this claim is valid since she makes explicit her feelings on this particular aspect of the movement – nowhere does she offer a contradictory assessment of this particular aspect of the student movement either. In fact, she is very critical of the student movement regarding a whole number of aspects.
(c) Harvard University-based researchers for The Joan Shorenstein Barone Center also used Wong in the exact same way.
(d) The vast majority of other sources that I have accessed – both primary and secondary – offer the same assessment of this particular aspect of the student movement, thereby lending great weight to my claim.
(e) My assessments reflect where the weight of empirical evidence actually falls. I do not reach assessments that contradict where the weight of empirical evidence falls. To do so would be illogical. Only those who are ideologically biased (blinded) would reach conclusions that do not reflect what the weight of empirically-verifiable evidence shows to be the case.
Richard – how about being reasonable then? Surely we can discuss issues in a more civil and productive manner? I’m certainly willing to. Are you?
Stuart – I appreciate your concerns. I have no intentions of sanitising history, but nor do I have any intentions of presenting a one-sided view of events. To acknowledge the fact that many people died needlessly does not undermine the argument that responsibility for the tragedies that unfolded must be shared.
Richard – regarding your reading of Professor Daniel A. Bell’s recent opening paragraph to his New York Times opinion piece.
Firstly, Daniel Bell did not write the article, Daniel A. Bell wrote it. Daniel Bell is a sociologist, not a historian, who regarded himself as a “socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture.”
His son, Daniel A. Bell, who wrote the article you are referring to, is not an historian either. He’s a professor of philosophy. I own two of his books, both of which I have read very carefully, and so I know that he is using the term “pro-democracy” to mean that the students were calling for democratic reforms to the one-party system (the popular Chinese understanding, or conceptualisation of democracy). This of course, was also Zhao Ziyang’s understanding of democracy.
Bell knows very well that the students were not calling for the overthrow of the one-party system, or of the CCP even for that matter. They were not calling for a Western-style multi-party democracy, as I argued in Part I of my essay. Professor Merle Goldman (I also own two of her books) actually devotes an entire page in her book on “Sowing the Seeds of Democracy in China” to explaining the popular Chinese conceptualization of democracy, which she distinguishes from the Western conceptualization. She too, argues that the students were not calling for a Western-style democracy. Goldman, by the way, is widely regarding within academia as the foremost expert on the Chinese 1989 democracy movement.
Richard – you too seem to agree that the students were not calling for a Western-style system of political economy, so I’m puzzled then as to why you object so much to my essay. I NEVER claimed that the reforms called for were not democractic in spirit – though I agree with you, that I should have made this more explicit. I will certainly add a few sentences to make this so point explicit when I revise my essay – drawing upon Professor Merle Goldman when I do so.
Again Richard, I think you like to read way too much into my essays, and this I think, reflects your negative attitude towards me as an individual. I really do wish that you would make a bigger effort to understand me. Normalising relations would be a good start towards realising this.
As a side – I draw upon Bell in both my Introductory and Human Rights essays (on my China Discourse website), to help develop my value pluralist assessments of China. Bell actually visited my site and left a favourable comment in response to my essay on human rights (as this is an area that he himself is concerned with, and which he has written about on many occasions). I later tracked down his email address (which I easily found online) and we have corresponded via email on a number of times. He agrees that my reading of him as a value-pluralist is a fair description of him, though he tells me that he prefers to see himself as a neo-Confucianist.
Everyone – sorry about all of the careless typing errors in my above comments. I knocked them up in a hurry between lessons, so didn’t have time to proof-read them.
“Finally – Part II is now two-thirds of the way written. I shall be sure to publish it before June 4.”
Be sure not to omit the part where the distraught parents of the missing turned up at the Square the morning after the night before. And it wasn’t democracy they were looking for. Their children were gone; they wanted to know where; the PLA shot them in the back.
Sorting fact from fiction is always a good idea; sanitizing barbarity is not. Good luck with part II. Do a real job.
Yeah, leave it to the NED to fund the ‘disgruntled with China’ campaign (Aka the Tiananmen Mothers.)
Well, Hitler could very well have been adorable in some ways (you say he was charming to women, eh? With that silly little mustache?). Cherry picking quotes to prove that doesn’t necessarily detract from his overall evil UNLESS the essay explicitly argues that his adorableness in some aspects refutes or diminishes his evil elsewhere. Likewise, I think your employment of the Hitler example against MAJ’s essay (again, just his essay) was inappropriate, because I didn’t feel MAJ’s essay was anywhere suggesting that the faults of the students detracted from what they were asking of the government, or let’s the CCP government off the hook for the CCP government’s own fuck ups.
Richard, regarding the comments you quoted, one of the first thoughts that came to my mind was: Is there any researcher whose work ISN’T derivative or what others have siad?
Anyway, as we corresponded in e-mail, I definitely see how cherry-picking quotes or anything that takes statements out of context could be argued as misrepresenting that person unfairly. I also see how it is actually de rigeur for argumentative essays since time immemorial. The appropriate and expected response to such an essay is to write a rebuttal quoting the same sources saying the opposite of what was cherry-picked by the first writer. I guess I personally don’t find cherry-picking in argumentative essays to be so unexpected.
Moreover, MAJ’s essay wasn’t about using these people’s quotes to make a statement about THEM. It was about using these people’s quotes to lend support to the central thesis of the essay, that the Western media distorted the movement. Now, I haven’t been following the discussion over at Fool’s Mountain since comment #15 or so since it didn’t seem to be taking off, so maybe MAJ has said something that I’m not aware of. Please take my representations of MAJ as what I honestly know of his position instead of me being disingenuous. That said, I don’t understand why you guys are equating MAJ’s essay with him pinning the blame of the eventual bloodshed entirely on the students, nor do I understand the other side of the coin: “his greater agenda, which is letting the CCP off the hook for its fuck-ups.” I didn’t get that impression from his essay alone. Are you guys drawing from things he has said elsewhere?
I hate to say this but you know what this sounds like? This sounds like Chinese fenqing bitching about Westerners and Western media reports ignoring all of the good, improvements, etc. of China whenever they write a piece critical of China. Likewise, I don’t see the moral imperative that MAJ dilute what he’s arguing by arguing for his detractors…in an argumentative essay no less! You want to say that his sources said plenty of good things for the movement, that’s fine, by all means go ahead. But does it materially change the information cherry picked by MAJ? Do 99 other comments by the same person praising the movement for being peaceful and sincere materially change 1 comment by that person saying “they weren’t actually protesting for the same values we first thought they were and continue to report them as”? (short of another comment retracting that 1 comment, but even then that’s a controversy in of itself).
It doesn’t, richard, which is why his use of those quotes to support his central thesis is fair game. So long as he is not misrepresenting the quotes’ support of his argument, he’s not doing anything wrong. Were his central thesis a characterization of the person being quoted, you’d have an argument, but that just isn’t the case. I feel your objection to cherry-picking doesn’t actually refute or de-legitimize MAJ’s central thesis. It’s a straw-man argument because the only way for your criticism to work is if his essay was about characterizing or representing the overall position of the sources cited. This is argument construction and I think you’ve made a big mistake. Knowing what I know of what you’re actually valuing, I really don’t think its necessary for you to pursue this fallacy of an argument. In fact, I think it could only distract or even hurt what you’re really after.
What you’re really after, as I gather from your comments and your latest post on TPD, is (to use Phillip Cunningham’s own words) “to get the public eye back on the culpability of those most culpable.” Knowing also that we agree on the distortion of the Western media and their presentation of the students, I also conclude that you feel MAJ’s essay is some attempt to pull the public eye away from the culpability of those most culpable, and that’s why you’re so antagonistic towards it.
So here is where we disagree: While fully understanding how anniversaries seem to be great moments to emphasize things, I happen to think the public eye has been on the culpability of those most culpable (the CCP, specifically the hard-liners) the entire time. I think the continuing persistence and pervasiveness of the distorted and oversimplified black-and-white understanding of Tiananmen. and the consequent oversimplified demonization of the Chinese government by those who were taught and continue to harbor such distorted and oversimplified black-and-white understandings of Tiananmen, evidences that the public eye has never really looked at anything else. Here, we need to define “public eye” and I define it as the mainstream society. I fully grant that many academics and scholars may have, you know, “neglected blaming the CCP” while they navel-gazed their own objectivity, but really, I don’t think this actually had much of an influence on the “public eye” of the mainstream masses.
Your arguments make it sound as if the world is going to end and the evil CCP is going to get away with murder just because a few intelligent people (and some not so intelligent people) either read or discuss an essay rehashing testimony and facts that are NOT widely known amongst mainstream society (they aren’t, does anyone actually think they can argue otherwise?). The world isn’t going to end and the vast majority of people are still going to disagree with what the CCP did. They’re still going to acknowledge the “most” culpability of the most culpable.
You may argue that the horrible downside is that a bunch of Chinese people are going to think the students were at fault and the government did what was necessary. Let me tell you a secret, you were never going to change those people’s minds anyway. Instead, by trying to discourage introspection or navel-gazing, you only alienate those whose minds could’ve been changed, by showing them that you’re not better in how you deal with information about Tiananmen than the Chinese government that censors information about Tiananmen. You can’t subvert transparency, accountability, and the freedom to discuss information of any individual’s choosing and hope you’re going to convince others of your conviction in them. If we want to help the Chinese people get information about Tiananmen so they can make the right conclusions, we have to come to them with confidence in our arguments and beliefs, not in the manipulation or restriction of the information we feed them (or ourselves).
Why?
Because if we don’t, it means we don’t respect them as individuals and peers capable of rational thought and consideration. Because if we don’t, we’re telling them that we don’t think they can listen for themselves and judge for themselves, and instead, they need us to tell them what to think because we, mighty we, know better than them.
You won’t get far treating the Chinese as inherently inferior to you. That’s NOT what we stand for. Or is it? Please seriously consider my above statements. I know most Westerners are going to knee-jerk in response to any suggestion that they’re some politically incorrect adjective/noun, but really, ask yourself why is it necessary to downplay, restrict, discourage, malign, suppress, etc. what others want to talk about? Why are we so insecure in our convictions that the fight for greater accountability and opposition to violence are GOOD (and universal?) that we fear points that are ultimately separate and independent legitimate/valuable?
P.S. – Note how the above steers FAR away from cross-dressing penis-sharing shenanigans. I actually don’t want to know, and I consider such background information to be amusing but irrelevant to my points. I’m evaluating what is said in MAJ’s piece and how it is said to support the piece’s central thesis, not who the author is or what the author’s motivations may be beyond the stated thesis. I’m further discussing the reactions to his piece or, more accurately, what his piece reperesents to you and other detractors like you. I just find your reactions to be unnecessary to your stated goals unless one of your goals is personal with MAJ of course. I do feel your reality checks have more to do with the character of MAJ than the content of his essay (which is what I’m trying to stick to) though, and I’m fine with both of you saying your piece though I prefer it to be about the issue instead of each other. That said, both of you spend too much time trying to annoy each other (I can feel it in the words, the WORDS!).
What official Chinese position are you referring to and what part of their position continually squashes you? I happen to feel that most of the time the official Chinese position is so riddled with fallacies that even an undergraduate student of Introduction to Rhetoric can tear apart with ease. I sense you’re basically saying, again, we sometimes feel compelled to fight fire with fire, using the same tricks the Chinese government does against them for the “greater good” against the “greater evil.” Excepting people like stuart who don’t actually appear to make such an evaluation prior to climbing onto the soapbox, I do entirely empathize with this temptation. Even so, it doesn’t change the basic fact that you’re still violating the very ideals you’re trying to instill in others.
Knowingly being hypocritical doesn’t sit well with me. I don’t think pretending your own faults or mistakes to not exist actually stops the opposition from actually knowing them. You just more or less come across as a hypocrite, and while doing so might bolster the support from your side that you already have, it does little to persuade those on the other side. Wasn’t the goal to help the Chinese, not alienate them? This is a good question: Do we whitewash because it’ll help us win over the Chinese or do we do it just because we can’t tolerate dissent within our ranks (heh, and all this over rhetoric, not military engagements)? Do we insist on avoiding introspection because it’ll sway the opposition or just to keep our own from asking questions?
The “poisoning the well” statement I made was actually referring to stuart suggesting without substantiation or elaboration that MAJ had malevolent motivations in writing his essay. However, in response to your argument, I’ll point you to the same article I pointed stuart to previously: What aboutery. This ties in with my argument of “changing the subject.” Someone writes a well-researched and well-cited essay discussing the distortion of Western reporting or the less-than-angelic-western-pro-democratic-freedom-fighting facts of the students, and instead of responding directly, addressing, or debating those issues and points directly, you see fit to latch onto “Tiananmen Square”, broaden the issue, and then switch it over to something the entirely different. This amounts to evasion and intellectual dishonesty, no matter how hard you try to argue that “well, what I want to talk about is more important than what you were talking about.”
Sure, your descriptions of the Chinese government’s behavior may be totally accurate, but you’re still hijacking the discussion and that’s just not cool (intellectually honest). Why must any discussion of Tiananmen be discussed only in the way of your choosing? (Don’t take all my “you” and “your’s” personally, I trust you can tell when they apply and when they’re general) Why must any discussion of Tiananmen only be about your cause and your cause only?
I don’t think the Western media questioning their own bias shows insecurity in the (our) belief that government should be accountable to the governed. I think a lot of what you’re saying might confuse that. The Western media questioning itself shows insecurity in their own objectivity. This is a GOOD thing because it is something anyone should ALWAYS consider…forever. Acknowledging that the western media whitewashed the students doesn’t change the West’s conviction that the fight of the students for greater accountability was GOOD. Acknowledging that the western media distorted the movement to be more western or pro-democratic than it was (insofar as democratic is defined by the Western value system) doesn’t change the West’s opposition to how the Chinese government eventually squashed the movement. Likewise, acknowledging that the students were imperfect doesn’t and shouldn’t ever be equated to excusing or justifying the violence employed by the government or the military (except in playground politics).
Others using your own navel-gazing against you is a fallacy, an error in reasoning or argument. You need to be secure in knowing that, in knowing better than them. When you know your opposition’s arguments better than they do, you have the power to control the discussion, steering it away from the fallacies and towards points of agreement to arrive at the conclusion you wanted to impart upon them. Fighting fire with fire doesn’t usually help in this regard. I fully admit that fighting fire with fire can be incredibly satisfying, but you have to figure out if your goal is to actually work with the other side or if you just want to exchange rhetoric blows with the other side to see who KOs first.
I think stuart’s concerns here are understandable, but I simply don’t agree with them. First, it is illogical to conclude to dismiss the significance of the entire episode just because certain elements previously held to be “true” were argued or proven otherwise.
Let me give an extreme analogy: Were 9/11 to be proven to be a government conspiracy, it still wouldn’t change how it dramatically affected the American’s social-psyche vis a vis terrorism and the possibility of foreign attacks upon home soil.
Likewise, even if it is argued or proven that the students in the Tiananmen protests contributed to an eventual breakdown in discussion with the government that led to the government hardliners resorting to force, it doesn’t change how Tiananmen was a watershed event that has left an indelible mark upon Chinese government and society (which includes the government’s iron-willed efforts to suppress information of it ever happening).
MAJ’s essay on Tiananmen isn’t something like Holocaust denial. It doesn’t deny that violence occurred and people died. It uses cited sources to nuance what he felt was a one-sided or incomplete picture presented to the mainstream audience. No one is arguing that the government NOT be held accountable for their actions. The piece doesn’t “deflect” responsibility “somewhat”, it suggests that it will evaluate the student’s share of the responsibility for 6/4. Why must evaluating how the students behaved and the decisions they made be exempted from discussion of 6/4? Why must any discussion of that be accused of deflecting responsibility and pandering to nationalism?
Second, stuart, you’re insisting upon a black and white narrative, where the only acceptable option to you is your “white” narrative and anything differing to be a “black” narrative. The truth is that the narrative is a massive grey…but you attack that grey as being black. You fear “those conditioned to the idea of a ‘China-bashing western media’” while you’re one of “those conditioned” to fear anything that doesn’t accord all blame upon the Chinese government. I personally find it amusingly hypocritical when you accuse other people’s opinions/arguments of reinforcing “polarized thought” when the same can be said of your own blog and many of the comments you delight in posting.
stuart, you come across as the self-righteous Westerner who thinks his own judgment is the objective standard that all others should defer to.
Let me ask you: How will showing that the students were elitist change the fact that students mobilized to demand more accountability from their government? How will showing that the students used methods and tactics far from the ideals of Western democracy change the fact that students and workers 20 years ago gathered to air their grievances with their government? How will showing that the students contributed to a breakdown of negotiations with the government change the fact that the government still rolled in the military to clear out their seat of government? How will showing the warts and mistakes of the students/demonstrators change the fact that people did die, that it was Chinese vs. Chinese, and that this event is still so significant to this day?
It doesn’t. I fear your position amounts to an insistence of maintaining a polarized version of Tiananmen simply because you see anything else to be “whitewashing” the Chinese government you abhor. stuart, that doesn’t open minds to the “truth” of Tiananmen either.
Kai,
Earlier, in response to MAJ, I offered this:
In that sense I feel that it may reinforce existing polarized thought…
And from you:
“I fear your position amounts to an insistence of maintaining a polarized version of Tiananmen”
True objectivity is an ideal. You don’t possess it and neither do I. Further, it’s not hypocritical to seek a more nuanced understanding from an existing position that falls a little to the left or right of a particular argument. On the contrary, it demonstrates a willingness to be shifted by the merits of new ideas and information.
You asked me:
“How will showing the warts and mistakes of the students/demonstrators change the fact that people did die, that it was Chinese vs. Chinese, and that this event is still so significant to this day?”
And yet in my very first comment I wrote:
Some hold more water than others, but none change the impact that 6/4 had on modern Chinese history…
If you yourself care for debate and reducing the polarity of such issues, I humbly suggest a less belligerent tone than this:
“stuart, you come across as the self-righteous Westerner who thinks his own judgment is the objective standard that all others should defer to.”
As I’ve said before: you’re wrong about that, and the way I know you’re wrong is because I’m the one telling you. That said, I fully appreciate that you don’t know me as well as I do.
Thanks for not deleting me today, btw.
1. I know true objectivity is an ideal. I also know that each person’s judgment of another person’s objectivity is also inherently subjective. Ad nauseum. Just as you expressed that you feel MAJ’s piece reinforces existing polarized thought, I expressed the same feelings I have regarding your blog and comments. I never claimed to posses true objectivity, but I did claim you’re a self-righteous Westerner who thinks his own judgment is the objective standard that all others should defer to.
2. I never said you were hypocritical to seek a more nuanced understanding from an existing position. Where did you get that? Please re-read what I wrote before responding. Didn’t you say you reflect/respond to comments? Read carefully and do it. Moreover, what you said is precisely what I criticized you for NOT doing in your past behavior in this thread (and elsewhere). IN MY OPINION, you have NOT come across a seeking a more nuanced understanding from your exiting position NOR have you demonstrated a willingness to be shifted by the merits of new ideas and information. Of course, you have again insisted that I am wrong just because you say so. Again, self-righteous.
3. You. Didn’t. Answer. The. Question. AGAIN.
4. Thanks for demonstrating my point that you come across as the self-righteous Westerner who thinks his own judgment is the objective standard that all others should defer to. Yes, I am repeating this.
5. You’re very close to being deleted again so long as you keep up with confusing the issue (#1), misrepresentation and misappropriation (#2). skirting the issue and failing to read (#3), and the disingenuous comments (#4). I don’t care if it is intentional or not.
Seriously. I will never visit this blog again – it is just ridiculous to act in this fashion.
LoL, wow.
Dude, that’s the nature of the marketplace of ideas, stuart. Your very own blog and all of your comments are associated with your own vested interests in something or another. MAJ’s article argues that the West had a vested interest in presenting Tiananmen the way they did. You’re now bitching that MAJ (and “those” with “vested interests”) are arguing what they’re arguing because they have a vested interest in exposing the vested interests of those who reported Tiananmen in a distorted manner. Next, I bitched about your bitching because I have a vested interest in maintaining my faith in humanity. Guess what, you’re now bitching that I’m bitching because you have a vested interest in continuing your bitching.
We all have vested interests! We’re all nefarious! Woe unto us!
I wasn’t aware the Cultural Revolution is still life and kicking in so many people’s mind. A typical storm in the teacup would be used to discredit a person and his/her viewpoints? If you have to do that, how about at least give the person a chance to explain him/herself?
http://blog.bcchinese.net/bingfeng/archive/2005/07/18/29096.aspx
Hm, interesting link. Seems like there’s an age-old feud going on surrounding MAJ and Richard that many of us were completely unaware of. Thanks CnInDC for sharing the link. It presents another side of the whole MAJ credibility issue. That said, I do personally wish the comments on this post can actually focus on the points regarding Tiananmen brought up by MAJ’s article, instead of becoming a proxy battlefield for the credibility of the author or those of his detractors.
Deleted. If you want to continue instigating, you can either do so on your own blog or e-mail my spam filter @ kai [at] cnreviews.com. – Kai
As usual, I see that Richard continues, after all of these years, to spam his Fantabulist thread everywhere I post! I’m both disappointed and yet, strangely enough, rather amused.
Richard – you are just being plain nasty, admit it. It’s really not necessary. You’re alerting everyone here to an event that happened back in 2004/5, and yes, I have apologised to you countless times, both publically and in private emails that I have sent you. So why can’t you forgive? Why the need to continue with all the attacks? What’s wrong with integrating quotations from both primary and secondary sources in order to create a discourse of my own? Isn’t this what most writers of discourse do? On my China Discourse site, I even carefully footnote all of my sources, as I did with this essay on Tiananmen. That way people can check the sources that I use for themselves.
I really don’t understand why I am being attacked for writing detailed comments that cite all of my sources. It’s truly puzzling.
I’m certainly prepared to forgive you for having encouraged the kind of cyber tribalism that amounts to bullying – posting a thread about me titled “The Fantabulist”, lifting a photo of a crying baby to accompany it, and then inviting the mob to go on the hunt, daggers and spears in hand.
None of my blog comments (since being banned from your site all those years ago) are stolen. I instead am in the habit of synthesising a number of readings to create discourses of my own. In doing so I now cite all of the sources I use. What is wrong with that? How is that stealing? It’s not stealing – it’s not plagiarism.
I have, since our online dispute all those years ago, engaged in a number of productive online debates on various sites. I no longer have the kind of time that I had on my hands back in the days when I was a regular pain on your site, so I tend to engage only very occasionally in online debates. In fact, I can count the number of real online debates that I’ve had since 2005 on one hand. The first took place on the American Public Broadcasting Service online discussion forum set up to take comments in response to the television series, “China From The Inside”, back in January 2007. I did not plagiarise any of my comments on that site, nor did I leave any comments under other names. I did however, integrate many quotations from a good variety of sources – both from online sources and by typing in quotations from books and journal articles that I own in print – in order to support my arguments. This is not plagiarism as far as I’m concerned. In fact, this is how most students and academics produce works of discourse: they read a large variety of primary and secondary sources so that they can synthesise all of the various arguments to produce assessments of their own. It’s ridiculous of you, to be frank, to try to dismiss this way of constructing comments and essays as plagiarism. Just about every academic book and student essay ever written is plagiarised if this is how you define plagiarism.
The style that I use to write the essays I have posted on my China Discourse website mirrors the style I used as a university student. None of the professors and doctors who assessed my research essays ever accussed me of plagiarism and more often than not they awarded me with High Distinctions. My Honours History thesis, which examined the differential treatment of men and women by the 18th century British criminal law courts, was likewise awarded a First Class. To be awarded even a pass, the thesis must be original. It was assessed by an Oxford scholar, and again, I constructed it in much the same way that I have constructed my China essays – I use my research skills to locate a variety of both primary and secondary sources, I then read them and synthesise the various arguments to construct assessments of my own, quoting from the various sources read to support my arguments.
The response to my online debate with David Meanwell of the London-based Tibet Information Network on the PBS discussion forum, benefited us both, and I think a good number of people enjoyed keeping up with our discussion. Professor Suzanne Ogden, who is a China specialist who teaches at Northeastern University in Boston, left a comment on that discussion forum, addressed to me in response to my comments, which read:
“Well done, M.A. Jones! A remarkably coherent and incisive commentary on the Tibet issue. Australia’s N.S.W. Department of Education and Training should be very pleased with you as an employee. China is lucky to have you as a teacher, and PBS is very fortunate to have had you participate in such an extended manner on this very important issue, which is usually misrepresented to the public. Tibet has become such a political issue that most commentators, not excluding academicians and journalists, lead with their emotional ideological commitments rather than with the facts and reality. I would just add to your many sources one author that should not be overlooked: Donald S. Lopez, Jr., who is an authority on Tibetan Buddhism and has written about it extensively.”
You will find this comment on page two of the thread in question, and anyone who suspects me of having written this comment myself can easily track down an email address for S. Ogden, and ask her themselves whether or not she posted the comment.
She hardly regarded my style of constructing comments as plagiarism, or as in any way lacking in originality.
Only abut a month ago, Professor Daniel A. Bell, another Chinese specialist who currently teaches at Tsinghua University, left a comment on my China Discourse site in response to my essay on human rights. He was alerted to my site by Kate Merkel-Hess, another China specialist who edits the China Beat blog. This is what he wrote:
“Dear Mr. Jones,
Thanks for your interesting and well-written essays. I generally agree with your perspective and there is further support for your point that East Asians generally value communal solidarity more than Westerners from political value surveys carried out by Asian Barometer.
I’m impressed by the thoroughness of your research on China and human rights. But if you want to read more on the philosophy and the history of human rights thinking in China, I’d recommend Stephen Angle’s book on the topic published a few years ago (by Cambridge University Press, forget title) and on China’s recent human rights development I’d recommend articles by WANG Shaoguang published in Modern China and Boundary (all in 2008).
Good luck with your research! Now I must return to my student papers.
Best regards,
Daniel A. Bell
Philosophy Department, Humanity School, Tsinghua University, Beijing.”
Rather than dismissing my essays as lacking in originality or as being merely a string of quotes, he instead described them as being “interestng”, “well-written” and “thoroughly researched”. And again, anyone suspecting me of being Professor Bell can easily track down his email address and ask him for themselves whether or not he wrote the above comment.
Likewise, Professor Jeffrey Wasserstrom, another China specialist and co-editor of the China Beat blog, occasionally corresponds with me via email and last December he sent me a copy of his new book on Shanghai for me to review. My review was published by the George Mason University’s History News Network site. Again, I employed my usual writing style, integrating quotations not only from his book, but also from other works like Marshall Berman’s “All That Is Solid Melts Into Air”. The editors had no problems with my style. They accepted my submission, praising my review in their email to me as being “very nicely crafted.” Jeff Wasserstom said the same thing in an email he sent me, dated 8/12/08:
“Wow, that’s not just a very flattering review but a very smart one as well, much more of an engagement with the book’s themes. It is also just a nice piece of writing.”
I have the email in my inbox, should anyone doubt my honesty! I’ll most probably me meeting up with Professor Wasserstrom here in Sydney this coming July, as I’ll be attending a conference on China at the University of Sydney that he will be addressing.
Dan Harris of the China Law blog also appreciates my regular blog comments on his site, and he even reviewed by book. This is what he wrote on his site, April 12, 2009:
“It has taken me forever to read the book, ‘Flowing Waters Never Stale’, by Mark Anthony Jones. On the one hand, I really wanted to read the book because Mark is a long time China Law Blog reader and a very thoughtful commenter here. On the other hand, I worried his book would be too intellectual and since it is subtitled, “Journeys Through China,” I thought it would be too much the travel book. So it sat.
But I spent most of this weekend at the office on a big project and I started reading it as a diversion and I ended up hardly putting it down until I finished it. I wish I had read it sooner because I actually really liked it.
It is not so much a travel book as it is Mark’s very thoughtful observations on much of what he saw in China while living there from 2002 to 2007. Mark looks closely at various aspects of China and (just as he does in his comments on this blog), he looks at them from various perspectives. It has no particular agenda on how one should view China, beyond seeking that we look at it fairly and in context. It often looks at things from both a Western and a Chinese perspective, with Mark’s Chinese girlfriend, helping immensely on the Chinese side.
It really does make you feel like you are in China and I heartily recommend it.”
Richard – you will no doubt be familiar with the past contributor to your Peking Duck site who wrote under the name of Sojourner. He too happens to be a professional academic historian, based at a university in Hong Kong. Rather than dismissing my comments and essays as having been plagiarised or as being little more than a string of quotes, he too finds them engaging, though unlike Ogden and Bell, he disagrees with my overall assessments. Sojourner was around at the height of our online war of four-to-five years ago and at the time was well aware of The Fantabulist thread of yours – yet he was long ago able to forgive me for my sins. He trusts me enough now to send me photos of himself and his family on vacations, he trusted me enough long ago to reveal to me his full name and workplace, and he has even sent me a draft chapter of his forthcoming book to read over and to comment on – I won’t mention the title of the book, as that may give away his identity, but I can tell you that it examines British textual representations of China and the Chinese from the years 1880-1940. Sojourner isn’t concerned then, about any possibility of me plagiarisnig his yet to be published work. Why should he be? If Sojourner can forgive and forget, and even open his heart and engage with me as a friend, then Richard why can’t you I wonder? After all, Sojourner had just cause to be angry with me too at one stage during that Fantabulist period, as I did steal his handle, posting a few comments on your site under his name! He no longer has any hard feelings, for he recognised that entire episode for what it was – me behaving badly under pressure, with my back against the wall, under attack for an assortment of behaviours that I both did and did not commit.
But back to my post-Fantabulist online debates. Apart from the PBS discussion forum debate with David Meanwell, I also engaged in two separate debates with Amban on the China Law Blog, almost two years ago now. Amban was yet another contributor to your Peking Duck blog back in the days of the Fantabulist outbreak, and yet he too was able to engage with me in a few friendly and productive debates – one about claims of cannibalism in China during the Cultural Revolution, the other about the events that took place in Beijing back in June 1989. He accepted the legitimacy and value of me integrating quotations from a variety of sources in order to support my arguments. Why wouldn’t he?
The only other online debate that I have had the time to engage in since our initial dispute was the one I had very recently on the Fool’s Mountain site, which was on the issue of Tibet. Most people there, apart from FOARP (another of your Peking Duck contributors from the days of the Fantabulist beat-up) appear to have valued my contributions to the discussion. They seem not to have any problems with me presenting lengthy and detailed comments with quotatons from various sources integrated into them to support my assessments. I really don’t see why you should have a problem with me posting such comments on other people’s blogs.
I really don’t understand why you have suddenly decided to launch this attack. I certainly haven’t done or said anything to provoke it. It seems to me as though you are just being nasty – that you are acting out of spite. This is just not necessary Richard. I have apologised to you countless times for having failed to always adequately cite my use of sources back during the pre-Fantabulist thread days and I have since taken the care to cite all my sources whenever leaving comments on other sites so as to avoid more allegations of plagiarism. Yet still you keep following me around the blogsphere like a bad smell, spamming your Fantabulist thread wherever and whenever I leave comments. Most people are tired of your constant ongoing attempts after all these years to continue attacking and smearing me. Dan Harris refuses to allow such attacks against to be posted on his website, as does Professor Wasserstrom, who has even invited me to write guest posts for The China Beat. I don’t have the time at present – maybe later in the year.
Enough of the silly personal attacks and constant attempts at smear Richard, O.K. You’re becoming awfully boring now.
As for your criticism of my essay on Tiananmen, posted above: well, if you had bothered to actually read my essay carefully, you would appreciate the fact that I have drawn upon far more evidence than merely the fact that demonstrating students wore T-shirts with their slogans printed in Chinese, as evidence to support the line that most were not calling for a Western-style system of democracy.
Dude, you haven’t changed. You’re still cutting and pasting all over the place. Google any of that mush you write and you come up with dozens of other almost identical comments made by you.
The second part, which was supposed to be released on May 22, wasn´t published yet, was it? (Didn´t read all the comments above, sorry, if somebody actually already has answered this question …)
Right, MAJ hasn’t released his second part. Somewhere in the above comments he says he’s now aiming for a pre-June 4th release.
Ok, thanks for the info.
Wow, having read most of the comment thread — I sort of ran out of steam and got dizzy trying to track all the comments on people’s comments — I’m not really sure what I think about all of this. To be honest, I often refrain from commenting on a lot of the popular China blogs, including some run by people who commented on this post, because I worry about getting sucked into these rather contentious, and often very personal, conversations. I understand that many, if not most, of the commenters have history with each — in some cases stretching back more than half a decade — but it’s a little unsettling to see such animosity directed at other people who, I think, actually hold a lot of similar opinions and engage in somewhat similar work. As I write this I’m already imagining the nasty responses I’m going to get, but I still want voice these thoughts as I enjoy this blog and all the blogs written by the people who commented as well. You guys (are there any women commenting? — just curious) are all smart, well educated and very thoughtful. You all have a lot of insight into these matters and are very motivated in your efforts to articulate them. I’m not saying the comment boards needs to be a Quaker meeting, but I’d really like to see more constructive discussion about the actual content of the post and less parsing of the comments until the whole thing turns into various vendettas and convoluted to the point where it all needs to be rearranged in Talmudic format in order to be understood which comment is responding to which comment about which comment… I really think we can do better than this in terms of constructive dialog and in advancing discussion on these matters. Just my two fen on the subject…
By now most regular visitors to English-language China blogs will be aware that Mark Anthony Jones, the author of the essay that inspired this heated (oftentimes tangential) discussion, has died.
Despite the personal issues that sometimes clouded debate, MAJ leaves a legacy of contributions that got people talking about China matters. Kai’s ’20 exerpts’ of his Tiananmen essay is a case in point. And it remains, for the time being at least, the most commented upon post in CNReviews brief history.
None of this is a revelation.
Back in 1989, the journalists amongsts the students in the square were right then and there saying that the protest were NOT about removing the existing system but *making the existing system a better system*.
Those students were hardly liberal democrats (in the academic sense of “liberal” and “democrat”) but were in FACT supporters of the Chinese Communist Party.